Ad Complaints Reports - Q2 2010
Overview
The following are case summaries of consumers’ complaints about advertising that were upheld by National and Regional Consumer Response Councils (Councils) for the Q2 2010. Councils are composed of senior advertising industry and public representatives, who volunteer their time to adjudicate consumers’ complaints under the provisions of the Canadian Code of Advertising Standards (Code).
The case summaries are divided into two sections.
Identified Cases
This section identifies the involved advertisers and provides details about consumers’ complaints regarding advertisements that were found by Councils to contravene the Code. In this section, the advertising in question was not withdrawn or amended before Council met to deliberate on the complaint. Where provided, an “Advertiser’s Statement” is included in the case summary.
Non-Identified Cases
This section summarizes consumers’ complaints upheld by Councils without identifying the advertiser or the advertisement. In these cases, the advertiser either withdrew, permanently retired, or appropriately amended the advertisement in question after being advised by Advertising Standards Canada that a complaint had been received, but before the matter was adjudicated by Council.
As required by the Code, retail advertisers also ran timely corrective advertisements in consumer-oriented media that reached the same consumers to whom the original advertising was directed..
For information about the Code, the Consumer Complaint Procedure, and previous Ad Complaint Reports select the following links:
Identified Cases - April 1, 2010 - June 30, 2010
Canadian Code of Advertising Standards
Clause 1: Accuracy and Clarity
|
|
Advertiser: |
GTA Cancer Screening Network |
|
Industry: |
Not for profit |
|
Region: |
National |
|
Media: |
Out-of-home |
|
Complaint: |
1 |
|
Description: |
An advertisement in transit shelters showed seven arms, each one progressively darker in colour than the arm above it. A hospital identification bracelet was shown on the wrist of the darkest arm. The corresponding copy read, “Every time you tan your odds increase. Artificial tanning can cause cancer. Is it worth it?” |
|
Complaint: |
A special interest group alleged the advertisement was misleading because it implied that all types of artificial tanning can cause cancer. |
|
Decision: |
The advertiser stated that the intent of the advertisement was to increase awareness, particularly among young people, that exposure to UV radiation from indoor tanning equipment can increase the risk of melanoma. Council noted that the International Agency for Research on Cancer recently changed its classification of UV emitting tanning devices from “probably carcinogenic to humans” to “carcinogenic to humans”. However, Council found that the advertisement conveyed the overall impression that any artificial tanning method could cause cancer, and that the odds of a person getting cancer increased with his/her use of any of these tanning methods. This would include not only tanning beds, but also sunless tanning products and spray-on tans about which no cause and effect was adduced by the advertiser in relation to cancer. Council, therefore, concluded that the broad, all-inclusive claim made in this advertisement was inaccurate and omitted relevant information. |
|
Infraction: |
Clauses 1(a) and (b). |
|
Advertiser's Verbatim Statement: |
“At the time that these posters were developed, the term “artificial tanning” was being used by several health organizations in Ontario, including the Canadian Cancer Society and the Ontario Sun Safety Working Group, to describe tanning caused from tanning beds. The World Health Organization refers to the “artificial tanning industry” on their website, while journal articles often differentiate between “natural” or solar UV radiation and “artificial” UV radiation – such as that from tanning beds or lamps. Thus the term “artificial tanning” was deemed appropriate for this awareness-raising campaign. The posters certainly did not mean to imply sunless tanning products, such as spray-on tans or other cosmetics, cause cancer. Thus, while the term “artificial tanning” is one that is understood and used interchangeably with other terms by health organizations and researchers, it may not be as common for members of the general public as per the decision of the Council.” |
Clause 1: Accuracy and Clarity
|
|
Advertiser: |
Jim Gauthier Pontiac Buick GMC |
|
Industry: |
Automotive |
|
Region: |
Manitoba |
|
Media: |
Newspaper |
|
Complaint: |
1 |
|
Description: |
In an advertisement for a liquidation sale, the price of a vehicle was listed as “Now $6777.” |
|
Complaint: |
That the price was misleading. |
|
Decision: |
Council found no information in the advertisement that explained what the “Was” price represented. To Council, this information was crucial in order that readers could understand the basis for the advertiser’s comparative claim. Based on the above, Council concluded that this advertisement did not clearly and understandably state all pertinent details of the offer and did not present a disclaimer in a visible or legible manner. |
|
Infraction: |
Clauses 1(c) and (d). |
Clause 1: Accuracy and Clarity
|
|
Advertiser: |
Power Workers’ Union |
|
Industry: |
Not for profit |
|
Region: |
Ontario |
|
Media: |
Newspaper |
|
Complaint: |
1 |
|
Description: |
In a special information supplement on the subject of electricity the advertiser claimed that CANDU nuclear reactors were “emission-free.” |
|
Complaint: |
A special interest group alleged that the “emission-free” claim was misleading because CANDU reactors generating nuclear-sourced energy in Ontario emit pollutants into the environment. |
|
Decision: |
To Council, the general impression conveyed by the term “emission-free” was that CANDU reactors did not emit any emissions of any kind – neither greenhouse gas emissions nor any other type. According to the uncontroverted information cited by the complainant taken from OPG’s 2009 application for renewal of its Basic Comprehensive Certificate of Approval for the Darlington nuclear generating facility, numerous different contaminants are emitted into the atmosphere at the four CANDU generating sites in Ontario. Council, therefore, concluded that the unqualified emission-free claim in this advertisement was inaccurate and unsupported. |
|
Infraction: |
Clauses 1(a) and (e). |
|
Advertiser's Verbatim Statement: |
“The PWU does not agree with or accept the decision of the ASC in this matter, and is, frankly, surprised by it. The ASC’s own rules exclude the type of advertising at issue here from the restrictions set out in those rules. More importantly, however, the substance of the PWU’s message was and continues to be that CANDU technology is free of greenhouse gas emissions. This is a fact that remains true, and the ASC itself does not deny its truth, nor does the ASC take issue with the fact that the PWU’s position is entirely consistent with the positions of both the Government of Canada and the government of Ontario. The ASC’s decision amounts to a finding that the PWU should have been clearer in its message, which is a matter of syntax and not substance.“ |
|
Comment by ASC: |
“What the advertiser has characterized as a disagreement over ‘syntax’ was, in fact, a decision by Council that it is misleading under the Code for an advertiser to categorically promise one thing when, by its own admission, it can only deliver something that is significantly less.” |
Clause 1: Accuracy and Clarity
Clause 3: Price Claims
|
|
Advertiser: |
Canadian Tire Corporation, Limited |
|
Industry: |
Retail |
|
Region: |
Ontario |
|
Media: |
Flyers |
|
Complaint: |
1 |
|
Description: |
A savings of 50% or more off the regular price of all Christmas toys was promoted in a flyer. |
|
Complaint: |
The complainant tried to purchase a particular Christmas toy at one of the advertiser’s stores in Ontario at 50% off the regular price, but was advised by the store manager that the item was not on sale. |
|
Decision: |
Council found there was nothing in the flyer to indicate there were any exclusions to the sale. Nor was there anything in the flyer to indicate that the sale was applicable only at participating Canadian Tire stores. Because the complainant could not purchase the toy at the sale price promised in the advertisement, Council found that Canadian Tire’s advertisement contained an inaccurate representation about the price of a product and omitted relevant information. |
|
Infraction: |
Clauses 1(a), (b) and Clause 3 (a). |
Clause 1: Accuracy and Clarity
Clause 3: Price Claims
|
|
Advertiser: |
The Glasshouse Nursery & Garden Centre |
|
Industry: |
Retail |
|
Region: |
Ontario |
|
Media: |
Flyers |
|
Complaint: |
1 |
|
Description: |
A savings of 60% off all Christmas merchandise was advertised. |
|
Complaint: |
The advertiser would not honour the amount of the advertised savings. |
|
Decision: |
Based on the undisputed facts, Council found that the advertisement contained an inaccurate representation about the price of a product and omitted relevant information. |
|
Infraction: |
Clauses 1(a), (b) and Clause 3 (a). |
Clause 1: Accuracy and Clarity
Clause 8: Professional or Scientific Claims
|
|
Advertiser: |
Alliance for Life Ontario |
|
Industry: |
Not for profit |
|
Region: |
Ontario |
|
Media: |
Television |
|
Complaint: |
7 |
|
Description: |
In a television commercial intended by the advertiser to heighten public awareness of the fact that abortions diminish the opportunity for humans to experience life, the advertiser claimed that “up to 25% of your friends, neighbours and relatives are likely missing.” |
|
Complaint: |
The complainants alleged that the commercial made misleading statements regarding the number of people who would have lived, had their birth mothers not had abortions. |
|
Decision: |
The advertiser submitted that its claims were based largely on Statistics Canada tables regarding induced abortions and live births for the period 1972-2005, and the advertiser’s presumption that if foetuses had survived and not been aborted, a significant number of the live births would have married and had children of their own. Council carefully reviewed all of the material submitted by the advertiser and concluded that the claim that “up to 25% of your friends, neighbours and relatives are likely missing” was not adequately supported. Council did not take issue with or dispute the Statistics Canada data. However, Council was unable to agree with the conclusions the advertiser had extrapolated from that data, in particular as to the number of those foetuses who, if born, would have survived into adulthood, married and had children themselves. |
|
Appeal: |
At an appeal hearing requested by the advertiser, Council’s original decision was affirmed. |
|
Infraction: |
Clauses 1(a), (e) and 8. |
Clause 1: Accuracy and Clarity
Clause 8: Professional or Scientific Claims
|
|
Advertiser: |
Mountain Crest Brewing Co. |
|
Industry: |
Alcoholic Beverages |
|
Region: |
Ontario |
|
Media: |
Television |
|
Complaint: |
1 |
|
Description: |
In a television commercial, the advertiser claimed that beer cans are better for the environment than glass beer bottles. |
|
Complaint: |
A complainant alleged that the claim was untrue and unsupportable. |
|
Decision: |
Council carefully reviewed the commercial under Clauses 1(Accuracy and Clarity) and 8 (Professional and Scientific Claims) of the Code. These clauses require that all advertising claims must be supportable and that advertising claims must not imply they have a scientific basis when they do not. In addition, Council applied the Code’s Interpretation Guideline #3 - Environmental Claims. This enables Council, when evaluating allegedly misleading environmental claims, to take into account the standards proposed by the Competition Bureau and the Canadian Standards Association in their publication: Environmental Claims: A guide for industry and advertisers. Section 4.4 of that guidance document provides that “An environmental claim that is vague or non-specific or which broadly implies that a product is environmentally beneficial or environmentally benign shall not be used.”
Council found that the advertiser had an insufficient basis on which to make an environmental superiority claim for cans. This is of particular importance in the Ontario market where, under a very successful recycling program, 99% of refillable beer bottles are returned. Council concluded, therefore, it was misleading for the advertiser to claim that beer cans are environmentally superior to beer bottles.
|
|
Infraction: |
Clauses 1(a), (e) and 8. |
Clause 12: Advertising to Children
|
|
Advertiser: |
John Robert Powers |
|
Industry: |
Recreation and Entertainment |
|
Region: |
British Columbia |
|
Media: |
Radio |
|
Complaint: |
1 |
|
Description: |
In a radio commercial directed to children between the ages of 6 and 17 the advertiser claimed the first 100 children who texted “star at 2121” on their mobile phones could be become the next superstar. |
|
Complaint: |
The complainant alleged that the commercial was inappropriate for children. |
|
Decision: |
The overall impression conveyed by this commercial was that children could become stars on a children’s television channel if they were one of the first 100 to send mobile text messages to a certain telephone number. To Council, this exploited a child’s credulity and lack of experience, contrary to the Code. |
|
Infraction: |
Clause 12. |
Clause 14: Unacceptable Depictions and Portrayals
|
|
Advertiser: |
American Apparel |
|
Industry: |
Retail |
|
Region: |
National |
|
Media: |
Internet |
|
Complaint: |
1 |
|
Description: |
On the advertiser’s website young women were shown in various poses wearing the advertised product – a nylon spandex stretch lace unitard. |
|
Complaint: |
The images were highly offensive and inappropriate. |
|
Decision: |
It is generally understood that when advertising undergarments, models are often featured in suggestive poses. It is also understood that not all such advertising necessarily contravenes Clause 14 of the Code. In fact, Council found that the majority of the images displayed on the advertiser’s webpage did not raise an issue under Clause 14. However, referring to the slideshow entitled “Faye”, the young model (presumably Faye), appeared to be posed in the advertisement less to demonstrate the unitard’s selling features than for the stimulation and gratification of the viewer. Council, therefore, found that the images displayed obvious indifference to conduct or attitudes that offended the standards of public decency prevailing among a significant segment of the population. |
|
Infraction: |
Clause 14(d). |
Clause 14: Unacceptable Depictions and Portrayals
|
|
Advertiser: |
Cadbury North America |
|
Industry: |
Food/Supermarkets |
|
Region: |
Quebec |
|
Media: |
Television |
|
Complaint: |
1 |
|
Description: |
As he was exiting a grocery store, a young man was accosted by a large wrestler, who picked him up and hurled him against a vending machine until he spit out the piece of gum he had been chewing. While the young man was lying on the ground, other men arrived on the scene and ran away with the piece of gum. The super at the end of the commercial read: “Spit out your gum or we will find you.” |
|
Complaint: |
The complainant alleged that the commercial encouraged violence. |
|
Decision: |
The overall impression conveyed to Council by this commercial was that it condoned violence. The victim had no idea why he was being attacked and appeared stunned by what had happened. Council found and considered the elements of humour and fantasy in this commercial, and concluded that they did not negate the impression of gratuitous violence. |
|
Infraction: |
Clause 14 (b). |
|
Advertiser's Verbatim Statement: |
As a responsible manufacturer and marketer, Cadbury works diligently to ensure its compliance with the Canadian Code of Advertising Standards and with our own Cadbury Marketing Code of Conduct in all of our advertising activity. We believed the Stride gum Eternal Melon Wrestler ad was in full compliance with the Canadian Code of Advertising Standards, given our view that the scenario was intended to be seen as ridiculous and was, in our opinion, unrealistic. Although we are disappointed with the decision, we fully respect the decision of Council, the Canadian Code of Advertising Standards and the self-regulatory process. The ad stopped airing Sunday, March 28, within one week of the Council’s decision. |
Non-Identified Cases - April 1, 2010 - June 30, 2010
Canadian Code of Advertising Standards
Clause 1: Accuracy and Clarity
|
|
Advertiser: |
Food Manufacturer |
|
Industry: |
Food/Supermarkets |
|
Region: |
Ontario |
|
Media: |
Out-of-home |
|
Complaint: |
1 |
|
Description: |
An out-of-home advertisement claimed a potentially beneficial effect of consuming a certain food product. |
|
Complaint: |
The complainant alleged that the claim was misleading. |
|
Decision: |
The unmistaken impression conveyed by this advertisement to Council was that by simply consuming the advertised product it was possible to prolong one’s life. No evidence was provided by the advertiser to support the claim. Council concluded that the broad unqualified claim in this advertisement was misleading. |
|
Infraction: |
Clause 1(a). |
Clause 1: Accuracy and Clarity
|
|
Advertiser: |
Not-for-profit Organization |
|
Industry: |
Not for profit |
|
Region: |
Ontario |
|
Media: |
Newspaper |
|
Complaint: |
1 |
|
Description: |
In a newspaper advertisement, a charitable organization announced that at its recent telethon it raised a specified and sizeable amount of money. |
|
Complaint: |
The complainant alleged that the amount claimed by the advertiser to have been raised during the telethon was inaccurate. In fact, the advertised figure included monies generated through various fundraising events held throughout the year. |
|
Decision: |
Based on the acknowledged facts, Council concluded that the advertisement contained an inaccurate claim. |
|
Infraction: |
Clause 1(a). |
Clause 1: Accuracy and Clarity
|
|
Advertiser: |
Retailer |
|
Industry: |
Retail |
|
Region: |
Quebec |
|
Media: |
Flyers |
|
Complaint: |
1 |
|
Description: |
In a small advertisement in a flyer a personal video recorder (PVR) was advertised at a special price after instant rebate. In extremely small print below the price, a disclaimer read, "See in store for details". |
|
Complaint: |
The advertisement failed to state that the special price was available only to new customers. |
|
Decision: |
To Council, the disclaimer was not sufficient to alert consumers to the fact that there was an important limitation to the offer i.e., that only new customers could buy the PVR at the advertised price. Council, therefore, concluded that the advertisement contained a misleading representation about the price of a product and did not state all pertinent details of the offer in a clear and understandable manner. |
|
Infraction: |
Clauses 1 (a) and (c). |
Clause 1: Accuracy and Clarity
Clause 3: Price Claims
|
|
Advertiser: |
Retailer |
|
Industry: |
Retail |
|
Region: |
National |
|
Media: |
Internet |
|
Complaint: |
1 |
|
Description: |
A video game was advertised at a price that represented a saving of 50% off the original price. |
|
Complaint: |
The price quoted in the advertisement actually represented a saving of 40%. |
|
Decision: |
The advertiser acknowledged that the price was incorrectly stated in the advertisement, although the error was corrected midday on the day it first appeared. Based on the facts, Council found that the advertisement contained an inaccurate representation about the price of a product and omitted relevant information. |
|
Infraction: |
Clauses 1 (a), (b); and Clause 3 (a). |
Clause 14: Unacceptable Depictions and Portrayals
|
|
Advertiser: |
Consumer Product Manufacturer |
|
Industry: |
Food/Supermarkets |
|
Region: |
Quebec |
|
Media: |
Television |
|
Complaint: |
1 |
|
Description: |
A man was shown in a deserted area suddenly surrounded by a group of people who repeatedly hit him until he fell to his knees on the ground. |
|
Complaint: |
The complainant alleged that the commercial encouraged violence. |
|
Decision: |
Despite its humorous elements, the scenario conveyed the impression to Council of condoning violence. |
|
Infraction: |
Clause 14 (b). |
Clause 14: Unacceptable Depictions and Portrayals
|
|
Advertiser: |
Retailer |
|
Industry: |
Retail |
|
Region: |
National |
|
Media: |
Out-of-home |
|
Complaint: |
68 |
|
Description: |
Women were depicted in very provocative poses in two out-of-home advertisements for a line of clothes. |
|
Complaint: |
The manner in which the women were depicted in these billboards was unacceptable for public display. |
|
Decision: |
Although advertising for clothing is often sexy and provocative, to Council the two complained-of advertisements overstepped the line of acceptability provided in the Code by being displayed on outdoor billboards to which persons of all ages and sensibilities were exposed. Council, therefore, found that the advertisements displayed obvious indifference to conduct or attitudes that offended the standards of public decency prevailing among a significant segment of the population. Council noted that the advertising could have been acceptable had it appeared in adult-targeted media, such as fashion magazines that are not intended for viewing by the general public. |
|
Infraction: |
Clause 14(d). |
Clause 14: Unacceptable Depictions and Portrayals
|
|
Advertiser: |
Retailer |
|
Industry: |
Retail |
|
Region: |
Quebec |
|
Media: |
Newspaper |
|
Complaint: |
3 |
|
Description: |
In an advertisement on the back cover of a free-distribution newspaper, a young woman on her hands and knees was posed in very revealing undergarments. |
|
Complaint: |
The woman was presented as a sex object in the advertisement. |
|
Decision: |
Council agreed that the depiction of the young woman in this advertisement degraded and objectified women. |
|
Infraction: |
Clause 14 (c). |
