Description:
In a video posted to her social media page, the influencer discusses how much she loves serving the brand’s product with her family dinners because of its multitude of flavours. The advertisement ends with the influencer advising viewers where they can purchase the brand’s product. This endorsement is included in both the copy contained in the static post as well as audibly in the video. The brand is tagged in the static post using the @ symbol. The social media platform’s paid partnership tool was not used.
Complaint:
The complainant alleged the post was misleading because it was clearly an advertisement, however, the material connection between the influencer and the brand was not disclosed, implying the post was organic.
Response:
In its response to Council, the parties advised that the absence of the required disclosure was an oversight that was promptly updated to include the material connection between the parties.
Decision:
Council appreciated the response from both the brand and the influencer, and considered the complaint together with the parties’ submissions.
Given the post omitted the required disclosure notifying viewers that there was a material connection between the brand and the influencer, Council unanimously held that the advertisement omitted relevant information, resulting in a deceptive ad and bringing the respective endorsements into question, which violated Clause 1(b) and Clause 7 of the Code.
Council also noted that in accordance with the Influencer Disclosure Guidelines, disclosure only in a caption accompanying a video is not sufficient. If the video itself contains content that triggers a disclosure, then the video should contain its own disclosure.
Infraction:
Clause 1(b), Clause 7
