2022 Complaint Case Summaries – Ad Standards

Ad Standards - Consumer Complaint Procedure - Consumer Complaints Reporting - Complaint Case Summaries - 2022 Complaint Case Summaries

Clause 1: Accuracy and Clarity

Clause 1: Accuracy and Clarity
Advertiser:	Auto Manufacturer
Industry:	Automotive
Region:	Ontario
Media:	Out-Of-Home - Transit
Complaint(s):	2
Description:	An advertisement depicted a vehicle and a two-wheeler on the road. The ad included a comparative claim along with a third-party award badge disclaimer, both related to the safety of the advertised vehicle.
Complaint:	The complainants alleged that the basis of comparison was unclear and that the ad implied that the vehicle was ‘safer’ than the two-wheeler, which could not be substantiated. The complainants referred to data from Statistics Canada reporting a high percentage of fatal incidents for two-wheelers involve vehicles between the other vehicle category to support their allegations that the implied comparison was misleading.
Advertiser Response:	In its response to Council, the advertiser submitted that the comparative claim was used as a tag line to align with the intent of the campaign. The claim was intended to compare the advertised vehicle against the safety of other vehicles with respect to collision prevention with pedestrians, which was supported by an independent third-party award. Testing conducted by this independent organization demonstrated that the advertised vehicle was ‘safer’. In addition, the ad included the third-party organization URL for access to relevant information describing the methods, criteria and results of the testing conducted to deliver such award.
Decision:	Council appreciated the advertiser’s response, and considered the complaints together with the advertiser’s submissions. In assessing the truthfulness and accuracy of an advertising claim or representation under Clause 1 of the Code, the concern is not with the intent of the advertiser or precise legality of the presentation. Rather the focus is on the claim or representation as perceived by the average consumer. Council considered the comparative claim in the context of the general impression conveyed by the ad. A majority found the comparative claim unclear and understood that some may perceive the ad differently than intended by the advertiser. Indeed, the take-away by a minority of Council, emphasized by the visual, was a comparison of the vehicle against the two-wheeler category. Some Council members noted that the award rankings listed on the third-party organization website was against comparable size class vehicles, not against all other vehicles, which was not evident from the general impression conveyed by the ad. On this basis, the majority of Council held that the ad contained an inaccurate, deceptive or otherwise misleading representation in contravention of Clause 1(a). A minority of Council found that the third-party award badge disclaimer was unclear and omitted relevant information under Clause 1(b) and 1(c), namely the specific category the comparative claim was based upon. However, this was not the prevailing view of Council.
Infraction:	Clause 1 (a)

Clause 1: Accuracy and Clarity, Clause 3: Price Claims, Clause 5: Guarantees

Clause 1: Accuracy and Clarity, Clause 3: Price Claims, Clause 5: Guarantees
Advertiser:	Retailer
Industry:	Retail – Brick-and-mortar
Region:	British Columbia
Media:	Flyer
Complaint(s):	1
Description:	The advertisement promoted a discounted food item on the front page of its weekly flyer. Language was included in the flyer to alert consumers that they provided a rain check and an additional discount for featured items that were out of stock.
Complaint:	The complainant tried to take advantage of the promotional offer by going into his local grocery store where he found out that the product was out of stock. The complainant asked for a rain check and the additional discount as advertised in the flyer. However, he was informed that the item he wished to purchase was not eligible for the rain check and associated discount.
Advertiser Response:	In its response to Council, the advertiser acknowledged that the product the complainant wished to purchase was excluded from its rain check and additional discount policy. The item was classified as a seasonal and limited-time product. However, the advertiser inadvertently omitted to add a ‘while supplies last’ disclaimer in close proximity to the advertised product, which would have clarified that the item was excluded from its rain check and associated discount policy for out of stock items featured in its flyer.
Decision:	Council appreciated the advertiser’s response, and considered the complaints together with the advertiser’s submissions. Council recognized that there was no intent to mislead. However, in assessing the truthfulness and accuracy of an ad under the Code, the concern is not with the intent of the advertiser. Rather the focus is on the general impression conveyed by the ad. Council unanimously found that the advertisement contravened Clause 1(a) and Clause 1(b) of the Code. Council agreed that the addition of a ‘while supplies last’ disclaimer may have been helpful to alert consumers that the item may run out of stock quicker than its regular weekly promotions. However, Council determined that it would not have been sufficient to inform consumers that the item was excluded from its rain check and additional discount policy for out of stock items featured in the flyer. A majority of Council members were also concerned that the ad did not fully explain the terms and conditions associated with its rain check and additional discount policy, nor did it direct consumers to where this pertinent information could be located. On this basis, the majority determined that the ad failed to fully explain the conditions and limits associated with the advertiser’s out of stock policy in contravention of Clause 5, which resulted in a deceptive discount in contravention of Clause 3(a).
Infraction:	Clause 1(a), Clause 1(b), Clause 3(a) and Clause 5