The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) published 35 rulings in June. As ever, the rulings assessed compliance under The UK Code of Non-broadcast Advertising and Direct & Promotional Marketing (CAP Code) and The UK Code of Broadcast Advertising (BCAP Code). Our advertising team have read them all selected some we think you need to know about and of course, one for fun.

Digital gold: Loot boxes must be declared

Two rulings this month against advertisers who failed to adequately disclose the fact their games included in-game and random-item purchases ('loot boxes'). In one case, posters advertising a gaming subscription service did not reference the fact that in-game purchases applied. The advertiser argued that, if purchasing the individual games, consumers would have the necessary information. However, the ASA considered that the ad referenced specific games and so the information should have been included within them. A retailer’s Gamer brochure and Christmas catalogue were ruled misleading because they featured specific video games but omitted information regarding loot boxes and in-game purchases. 

In both cases the ASA referenced CAP guidance on advertising in-game purchases which states that for some consumers, particularly those with specific vulnerabilities, the presence of in-game purchasing may be material to their decision to purchase or download a game. 

We’re likely to see more of these rulings given CAP started actively monitoring loot box disclosure statements at the end of May after it issued a notice to industry on disclosing them correctly. Moving away from the ASA, but staying with loot boxes, it’s worth noting that the Court of Appeal has ruled that virtual 'gold pieces' used in a popular online role-playing video game are 'property' capable of being stolen for the purposes of the Theft Act 1968.

Physical gold: Investments may go down as well as up

The ASA’s AI Active Ad Monitoring system has been sweeping the internet for non-compliant investments ads. We’ve seen fine art and wine ads that failed to make clear that investments can go up as well as down, the investment was unregulated, were unable to substantiate claims regarding growth and did not make clear that past performance doesn’t indicate future performance. This month saw gold investments under the spotlight for the same reasons. Claims which were ruled to breach the CAP Code included:

• “…invest in Gold & Silver for a fraction of the price!”
• “Why physical gold is a time-tested store of value”
• “How Investors Are Preserving Wealth with Royal Mint Gold Coins”
• “Gold prices go up. So does its value”
• “Gold prices have soared over the past 30 years – and they’re still climbing” 

Regulated investments are covered by the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA). The ASA deals with the non-technical aspects of financial advertising and unregulated investments, but its rule reflects the rules set by the FCA, including the requirement that ads should be clear that the value of investments is variable.

LED facial masks: Evidence needs to match the claim 

A claim that an LED facial mask was “clinically proven to reduce wrinkles in 4 weeks” was ruled misleading following the ASA identifying limitations in the methodology of the two studies provided to substantiate the claim. These included the fact that neither the researchers nor the participants were blinded and there was no control or placebo group to demonstrate that any improvements were linked to product alone. The unpublished studies were done at home and self-reported, and the cleansing pad and hydrogel participants needed to use were not supplied to them which inevitably would have introduced variables. The advertiser also submitted published studies but these related to masks using different technology so could not be used to support the product specific claims made. If you’d like to read more about rulings on LED facial masks, we cover an article on this very topic.

Medical claims cannot be made for unregistered products

The ad reg bots were also out looking at health monitoring apps to support the ASA’s project work. Three apps which claimed to measure blood pressure were ruled non-compliant for making medical device type claims for unregistered products, (“Blood Pressure Monitor App”, “Your iPhone now supports blood pressure monitoring” and imagery of smartphone screen displaying blood pressure-style readings). Two of the ads were also in breach because they implied blood pressure could be monitored by placing a finger on the screen of a smart phone. 

Ads which presented the products as able to identify, flag or predict such conditions or risks outside the supervision of a suitably qualified health professional (“This band caught the stroke before I could”, “This band saved my life”) breached the CAP Code for discouraging essential treatment for conditions for which medical supervision should be sought.

And finally…

A key principle of the Ads Codes is that advertising must be identifiable as such. Ads are also prohibited from causing fear or distress without justifiable reason (even if justified, fear or distress shouldn’t be excessive). Designing an ad to look like a penalty charge notice (yellow and black plastic wrapper, stating “Penalty charge notice enclosed” and “Warning. It is an offence for any person other than the driver to remove this notice”) was considered likely to cause distress. 

The motive, attracting attention for an indoor golfing venue ad, was not considered a justifiable reason.