Council was unanimous in its finding that the general impression conveyed by the advertisements was that the vehicles would come with a 1-year satellite radio subscription. The advertisements made clear and specific statements to that effect.  Further, the disclaimer was not sufficient, as the language used did not clearly disclaim the particular claim about the satellite radio and it was on the advertiser’s website rather than part of the advertisement.

For these reasons, Council found a violation of Clauses 1 (a) and (c) of the Code.

The majority of Council members were of the view that the general impression conveyed by the advertisement was that any type of chicken, regardless of whether it was white or dark meat, was included in the dinner special with no extra charge. Neither the images shown nor the verbal description of the meal suggested that it would include only dark meat for the price advertised. A majority of Council members also found that the disclaimer should have been larger and more prominently displayed in the advertisement so that it was easily legible and made clear that upgrading the side dishes would cost extra.

For these reasons, the majority of Council members found a violation of Clauses 1(b) and (d).

A minority of Council members found that the way in which the cut of chicken was described, combined with the fact that only dark meat was shown in the commercial, conveyed that only dark meat would be included in the meal for the price advertised. A minority of Council members also determined that the disclaimer was sufficient. However, these were not the prevailing views of Council.

In the view of Council, the advertiser did not meet the standard required by the Code for supporting a claim that was presented as a statement of fact. Under Clause 1(e), all advertising claims and representations must be supported by competent and reliable evidence. While the advertiser submitted that public health officials provided the information for the claims in the advertisement, the data upon which the health officials were relying was not provided to Council. Without this information, the advertiser did not satisfy the requirement under Clause 1(e), as no competent and reliable evidence was available. Council further found that the medical treatment in the advertisement was too new to make an unqualified and unsupported definitive claim about its side effects.

For these reasons, Council was unanimous in its decision that the general impression conveyed by the advertisement was misleading in contravention of Clauses 1(a) and 1(e) of the Code.

A minority of Council members found that the claims made in the advertisement should be covered within the scope of the warranty, and that concerns about warranty coverage were not part of the advertisement. However, that was not the prevailing view of Council.

Council was unanimous in its decision that important details about the promotion were not provided in the advertisement. In its discussions, Council noted that without a statement that the promotion was only being offered for one day, the advertisement did not clearly state all pertinent details, and therefore conveyed a misleading impression in violation of Clause 1 (c) of the Code.

According to the majority of Council members, the general impression conveyed by the advertisement was that, after using the advertiser’s services and products, consumers would not need to do any further maintenance on their houses. However, these members of Council questioned the accuracy of the claim, as there may be some instances where maintenance would be required by the consumer. While the inner workings of the advertiser’s product were covered by the warranty, the product could become obstructed, blocked, or rendered ineffective without maintenance to prevent objects from building up on its surface. Without this qualification, the absolute claim of “never” was misleading and relevant information was omitted from the advertisement.

For these reasons, the majority of Council determined the general impression of the advertisement to be misleading, in violation of Clauses 1 (a) and (b).

A minority of Council members found that the claims made in the advertisement should be covered within the scope of the warranty, and that concerns about warranty coverage were not part of the advertisement. However, that was not the prevailing view of Council.

The advertiser also stated that they had permanently discontinued the advertisement on receipt of the complaint.

Council members were unanimous in determining that the advertisement was in violation of Clause 1(a).

Advertiser’s local representative also added a statement to the customer’s order form indicating that the coupon offer was “incomplete” in an effort to both process the order and tell the customer that he was being given the offered discount although his order did not truly qualify.

It appeared to Council, based on the totality of information provided; that the coupon sent to the complainant was applicable to one set of menu items. However, the website to which the complainant was directed to for redeeming listed items also included items not included in the original offer, including the item selected by the consumer. Council attempted, but struggled, to understand how the coupon applied, to what, and how the selection of different options would impact redemption.

Although the consumer appears to have received some amount of discount, this in itself does not mean that the ad complies with the Code.

All Council members were in agreement that the advertisement was inaccurate, potentially misleading and at best unclear, all in contravention of Clause 1 of the Code.

Council members unanimously agreed that the advertisement was in violation of Clauses 1(a), 1(b) an 1(c) in that there were inaccurate or otherwise misleading claims, illustrations or statements made, that relevant information had been omitted from the initial coupon code to clearly advise consumers the value of the coupon offered, and that not all pertinent details were clearly or understandably stated.

Some Council members considered whether the advertisement was in contravention of Clause 1(d) since the footnoted information appeared to contradict more prominent aspects of the message, but this was not a prevailing view.

Although not a majority, some Council members commented that the fine print was placed too far away from the main message to be relevant and clear, and others raised concern about the faint colour of the fine print on the background, which added to the lack of legibility.

According to the majority of Council members, the general impression conveyed by the advertisement was that, after using the advertiser’s services and products, consumers would not need to do any further maintenance on their houses. However, these members of Council questioned the accuracy of the claim, as there may be some instances where maintenance would be required by the consumer. While the inner workings of the advertiser’s product were covered by the warranty, the product could become obstructed, blocked, or rendered ineffective without maintenance to prevent objects from building up on its surface. Without this qualification, the absolute claim of “never” was misleading and relevant information was omitted from the advertisement.

For these reasons, the majority of Council determined the general impression of the advertisement to be misleading, in violation of Clauses 1 (a) and (b).

A minority of Council members found that the claims made in the advertisement should be covered within the scope of the warranty, and that concerns about warranty coverage were not part of the advertisement. However, that was not the prevailing view of Council.

In the view of Council, the banner stating “shop now” was clearly attached to the special discount offers. There was no space between them. In contrast, there was white space between “shop now” and other online offers. This created a misleading impression that the discounts of up to 60% off were available online.

Council members were unanimous in their decision that this advertisement was in violation of Clause 1(b) of the Code in that it omitted relevant information that resulted in confusion and misleading consumers.

The majority of Council members also stated that the advertisement was in violation of Clause 1(a) and Clause 1(b) of the Code since they contained misleading illustrations and that pertinent details were not clearly and understandably stated.

The advertiser did not publish a correction notice, and so the ad was reviewed by Council.

Following discussion, Council members unanimously agreed that this advertisement falsely appeared to promote a prohibited item and was therefore, inaccurate, deceptive or otherwise misleading in its general impression to the public.

The majority of Council members also agreed that this advertisement omitted relevant information which resulted in the advertisement being deceptive or misleading.

A minority of Council members believed that pertinent details of the advertisement were not clearly and understandably stated. However, this was not the prevailing view of Council.

Following a review of all elements of the advertisement in association with Clauses 1(a), 1(b) and 1(c) of the Code, Council members were unanimous in their decision that this advertisement was in violation of Clause 1(b), since relevant information material to consumers’ purchase decision making was missing in the original advertisement. A majority of Council members also determined that the advertisement was in violation of Clause 1(a) since the offer was unclear about the type of plans, the cost of the offer, and who was eligible to participate in the offer made, rendering it misleading.

The delivery offers were differentiated by two differently-coloured banner ads for two types of delivery options.

Although the advertiser attempted to differentiate between the two offers by using different colours, the banner offering free delivery was at the top of the webpage. It appeared reasonable to Council that a consumer would believe that the free offer would apply to all that followed, including food delivery. Given the similarities between the banners, their placement, and since there were no disclaimers or exclusions indicating otherwise, Council members understood that the message and representation as received or perceived was in violation of Clause 1 of the Code.

Council members made specific reference to Clause 1(a), which states that advertisements must not contain or imply inaccurate or otherwise misleading claims, statements or illustrations; and also Clause 1(c), which requires that all pertinent details of an advertisement must be clearly and understandably stated.

Council members unanimously determined that this advertisement was in violation of Clauses 1(a) and 1(c).

Council noted that the complainant received the offer about the 5G network in the form of direct mail, implying that the service would be available to the specific recipients of the mailing.  The complainant was unable to enjoy the advertised high-speed benefit of the advertised 5G network.  Even though there was a disclaimer, the main message and general impression of the advertisement was misleading, causing the complainant to take action on the offer and yet not receive what was advertised. For these reasons, a majority of Council found that the general impression conveyed by the advertisement was misleading, in violation of Clause 1 (a) of the Code.

A majority of Council members were of the view that the general impression conveyed by the advertisement was misleading.  Council added that while a super clarifying the absolute claim would likely have helped, the advertiser over-emphasized the absolute claim throughout the ad.  Council found that many consumers would likely not have the technical knowledge and expertise to ascertain exactly what the absolute claim meant.

For these reasons, Council found the advertisement to be misleading, in contravention of Clause 1(a).

Council considered whether the advertisement could be a “teaser advertisement”, as it revealed little about the event, potentially in an effort to stimulate curiosity and interest before a later ‘reveal’. However, in its assessment, Council unanimously determined that the advertisement was not a teaser advertisement, and instead failed to disclose material information and specifically, the identity of the advertiser, in contravention of Clause 1(f) of the Code.

In Council’s view both the literal text of the ad, as well as the general impression created by it, spoke to the product’s unique performance benefit.  Council found that the ad claimed that the advertiser’s product was the only solution to the lawn care problem.  According to Council, the ad did not claim only to have a unique technology to address the problem, as the advertiser submitted.  Council was unanimous in its determination that this advertisement was misleading, in contravention of Clause 1(a) of the Code.

The displayed console option noted by the complainant is a feature of the product, and as such is outside of the scope of Council’s review. The advertiser’s decision to feature it, however, in the context of the ad was relevant to Council’s assessment and overall interpretation of the ad.

Council also determined that the disclaimer at the beginning of the advertisement was not sufficiently legible to offset the lack of regard for safety otherwise depicted, and glamourized in the ad.

For these reasons, Council members were unanimous in their decision that the advertising was in violation of Clause 10 of the Code as it showed a disregard for safety that might reasonably be interpreted as encouraging unsafe or dangerous practices, or acts.

Although not a majority decision, some Council members believed that this advertisement was in violation of Clause 14(c) [Unacceptable Depictions and Portrayals] since it appeared as a general impression, in both tone and content, to disparage Canadians. However, this was not the prevailing view of Council.

Council was unanimous in its decision that this advertisement was in violation of Clause 1(a) and Clause 1(e) of the Code.

While the advertiser presented an offer to consumers about its expedited services, conveying the general impression that all orders placed before noon would be fulfilled the same day, the advertiser could not necessarily execute on that offer. According to Council, the onus was on the advertiser to ensure it could fulfill its same-day offer. Because there were limitations to the same-day service due to supply shortages, and these limitations were not disclosed, Council found that the advertisement omitted relevant information. For these reasons, a majority of Council found the advertisement to be misleading, in violation of Clauses 1 (a) and (b) of the Code.

In light of the complaint being raised, the advertiser adjusted the terms related to their price match guarantee.

Council was unanimous in the view that the advertisement referencing matching ‘competitor’ pricing was not sufficiently clear to consumers and consumers would be misled as to the application of the price match guarantee. Consumers are unlikely to be aware of the corporate structure of the parent company and would not know that the advertiser and the other retailer are banners from the same parent company, nor are they likely to understand that because these two banners shared a parent company, they are not considered competitors for the purpose of the guarantee. As a result, the ad lacked relevant information and was therefore misleading under Clause 1(b) of the Code.

The advertiser advised that the ad subject to the complaint was no longer running.

The majority of Council was of the view that the advertisement within the app did not make it clear that the advertised price was for online purchasing only and would not be matched in store. While the Terms of Sale clearly sets out these restrictions, these terms are not referenced within the advertisement and a consumer would not be aware that these terms apply.  As a result, the majority of Council held that there was a violation of Clause 1(b) of the Code.

Council was of the view that, regardless of the terms of service that may exist, it was misleading to advertise a tool as part of a service package where such tool was not available. The inclusion of this tool as a feature of the service package when advertising the service package violated Clause 1(a) of the Code.

Council unanimously agreed that posting the BBB accreditation on the advertiser’s website during a period of time where that accreditation was suspended was misleading under Clause 1(a) of the Code.

The advertiser committed to improving its signage to ensure its messaging is clearer in the future.

In Council’s consideration of the every day signage and promotional digital display, the focus was on the representation as received or perceived, i.e. the general impression conveyed by the advertisement. According to Council, the general impression conveyed left the complainant confused about how many points could be earned during the promotion. Council was unanimous in its decision that by omitting from the advertising of the promotional offer that the double points did not apply to the ongoing offer related to points earned as a result of the method of payment, the advertisement was misleading in violation of Clause 1 (b) of the Code.

Council considered the data the advertiser provided against the claims made, and determined the research was not comprehensive enough to sufficiently support the claim. The commercial aired nationwide, but the price comparisons in the study were conducted with only two retail stores that were both located in the same province. To support a claim on a national scale, there needed to be a more comprehensive survey of retailer pricing, such as surveying stores across the country. Further, the data provided by the advertiser was outdated and store prices had changed since then. Council also found that the cost savings associated with transportation were not adequately supported. Because the advertised product is a kit with limited amount of goods per person, it would not include enough goods to cover additional headcount, so consumers would still need to shop at retail locations, especially for items that are not included in the kit. As such, the advertised claims about cost savings were not supported by competent and reliable evidence and were, therefore, misleading, in contravention of Clauses 1(a) and (e).

Council assessed whether the survey data supported the general impression of the “Canada’s best” claim. Council was of the view that a general superiority claim must be well substantiated. Council’s opinion was that the implication of the claim, that the product was the ‘best in Canada’, required more than consumer preference data to support the claim as it is a broader claim than preference and implies the products themselves are the best for unspecified reasons (such as pricing, scope, etc.). Since the support for the ‘best in Canada’ was based solely on consumer preference, that should have been made clear within the claim itself.

There were some questions raised by Council about the veracity of the survey data to support a consumer preference claim itself, but that conclusion was not necessary in light of the above finding. . For these reasons, Council unanimously found the advertisement to be misleading, in contravention of Clause 1 (a) of the Code.

The ad contained a disclaimer at the end of the spot for just over one second on screen that indicated that the ‘best’ claim was based on Canadian consumer preference.  The claim itself had been made earlier in the ad. A majority Council found that the disclaimer contradicted the main message that implied overall superiority and was therefore in violation of Clause 1 (d) of the Code.  One member of Council found that there was a violation of Clause 1(d) as a result of the disclaimer not being legible.

Council considered whether the depiction of a baby could create a misleading impression that a fetus within the specific time from conception looks like a baby as depicted in the ad. The majority of Council held that the visual depiction of the ad did not violate Clause 1(a) of the Code as it not conflate the swaddled baby shown amongst other stages of development with a fetus. Rather the general impression was that the reflex is a human behaviour throughout life.

In Council’s view, while the advertiser provided details about the organization and its website to support its claims related to the timing of the reflex development, it was unclear whether this website had credible information. There were no references made to a recognized scientific body. Further, the key piece of evidence in the advertiser’s list of articles that may have held the requisite substantiation was not accessible, as a paid subscription was required. Although Ad Standards requested more information about the contents of this article form the advertiser, this additional information was not provided. Without credible sources containing supporting data, the majority of Council held that the advertiser did not meet the onus of supporting its claim with competent and reliable evidence, thereby violating Clause 1 (e) of the Code.

“Material connection” is defined under the Code as any connection between an entity providing a product or service and an endorser, reviewer, influencer or person making a representation that may affect the weight or credibility of the representation.

Council was unanimous in its finding that because there was a material connection between the influencer and the brands, disclosures on each of the advertisements were required. Council took note of the Influencer Marketing Steering Committee Disclosure Guidelines, and in particular, the examples of best practices for disclosures on Instagram posts. Because the disclosures were not included in the posts, Council found that this omission resulted in the advertisements being deceptive or misleading, in violation of Clause 1 (b). Council further found that without the required disclosures, the Instagram posts were presented in a style that concealed the fact that they were advertisements, in violation of Clause 2. Last, Council found a violation of Clause 7, given that in order for an endorsement to comply with this Clause, any material connection between the endorser and the brand must be disclosed.

The Code provides that “Prices quoted in advertisements in Canadian media, other than in Canadian funds, must be so identified.” It was clear in this case that the advertisement included a price in U.S. dollars. On this basis, Council was unanimous in its finding that there was a violation of Clause 3 (c) of the Code.

In this case, the price in the flyer for the home was inaccurate due to a translation error. If there had been a correction notice issued, Ad Standards would have administratively resolved the matter and closed the file. Ad Standards uses the administratively resolved mechanism as a streamlined procedure to handle cases that are simple, non-complicated and typically involve mistakes, when it is in the best interest of both the advertiser and the consumer. However, because the advertiser withdrew the advertisement in question but did not undertake a corrective action, the case went to Council.

Council was unanimous in its decision that the advertisement violated Clause 1 (a), as it contained an inaccurate claim about the selling price for one of the houses featured in the advertiser’s flyer. A majority of Council found the advertisement to also violate Clause 3 (a), as the selling price inaccuracy created a deceptive price claim.

In this case, the shipping price discrepancy between the commercial and the website was a mistake. If there had been a correction notice issued on the advertiser’s website, Ad Standards would have administratively resolved the matter and closed the file. Ad Standards uses the administratively resolved mechanism as a streamlined procedure to handle cases that are simple, non-complicated and typically involve mistakes, when it is in the best interest of both the advertiser and the consumer. However, because the advertiser withdrew the advertisement in question but did not undertake a corrective action, the case went to Council.

The Code provides that “No advertisement shall include deceptive price claims or discounts…” Because the price listed in the commercial for shopping was lower than the actual price of shipping, Council unanimously determined that this claim was indeed deceptive, in violation of Clauses 1(a) and 3(a).

The Advertiser’s response included a statement that future offers would include material terms in closer proximity to provide clearer understanding for potential customers.

A majority of Council members found the advertisement to be in contravention of Clauses 1(a), 1 (c) and 3(a) of the Code.   Although not a majority, several Council members also found the advertisement to be in contravention of Clause 1(b) since relevant information was omitted.

Council was unanimous in its finding that the advertisement contained an inaccurate representation resulting in a deceptive price claim given the discrepancy between the price advertised in the flyer compared to the price for the product on the advertiser’s website.

Council also determined that while promptly updating the correct sale price for the product on the advertiser’s website was important, it did not constitute a corrective notice that would bring the error to the attention of consumers.

It was Council’s unanimous decision that the advertisement was in contravention of Clause 1 (a) and Clause 3 (a) of the Code.

Council appreciated receipt of the response and explanation from the advertiser, which assisted in its review. The fact that the advertiser offered a gift card to this affected consumer was not relevant to Council’s adjudication under the Code.

Following a review of all elements of the advertisement and the response from the advertiser in association with Clauses 1 [Accuracy and Clarity] and 3 [Price Claims], Council members were unanimous in their decision that this was a violation of Clause 1(a) in that advertisements must not contain inaccurate, deceptive or otherwise misleading claims, statements, illustrations or representations. The majority of members were also in agreement that this was a violation of Clause 3(a) providing that no advertisements shall include deceptive price claims or discounts.

Council discussed the fact that this was a technical error resulting in the serving of the offer to the complainant who wasn’t eligible to redeem the offer. Because violation of the Code does not require intentionality, Council unanimously held the advertisement of the offer violated Clauses 1(a) and 3(a) of the Code.

The majority of Council was of the view that showing these vehicles as being ‘inventory’ was misleading as the website did not indicate that these vehicles had to be ordered. The majority was also of the view that this was a technique used to lure consumers into the dealership to perhaps purchase a different vehicle. As a result, the majority held that the advertisement violated Clause 1(a) and Clause 4 of the Code.

The minority view of Council was that these vehicles advertised were available to purchase, although there was a 4 month wait to get them. Given the current state of new vehicle sales, consumers wouldn’t assume that seeing inventory with a generic photo indicates that the vehicle is in fact in-store, available for purchase.

Council was of the view that the website was misleading because it did not clearly indicate that the item was being sold by a third-party seller. While there was a statement that the item was sold and shipped by a third-party, it was not sufficiently understandable to a consumer that the product was not being sold by the retailer. Further, Council’s position was that the website was misleading because the item was advertised as being available at a specific price but, since the item was sold out by the third-party seller, it could not in fact be purchased at the advertised price. Council held unanimously that the website violated Clauses 1(a) and 1(c) of the Code.

Council also considered whether this advertisement violated Clause 4 of the Code. While some Council members felt that consumers were lured in by the advertised lower price of the third-party seller which was no longer available, and then advised that they could purchase the same item in one of the retailer’s in-store location at a significantly higher price, this amounted to a violation of Clause 4. However, that was not the prevailing view of Council who determined that there was no violation of Clause 4.

Even though the advertiser worked with the complainant to honour the email offer, Council’s focus was on the claim as received or perceived, i.e. the general impression conveyed by the advertisement. In this case, the advertisement in question was the email that promoted early access to the ski resort. Council was unanimous in its view that the email advertisement made inaccurate claims, since it was sent several months after the offer for early season access expired. The advertisement was therefore found to be misleading in violation of Clause 1(a) of the Code.

Council also considered the advertisement under Clause 4, Bait and Switch, of the Code, which states that “advertisements must not misrepresent the consumer’s opportunity to purchase the goods and services at the terms presented.” A majority of Council members found the email advertisement to violate this Clause, as the opportunity for early season access was advertised in an email without any qualification that the offer had in fact already expired.

Since the vehicle was not available at the advertised price, the complainant also felt that this was a ‘bait and switch’.

Council found that there were no qualifying conditions disclosed in the advertised promotional offer. The advertisement therefore omitted information relevant to the offer that may affect a consumer’s actions.

Furthermore, Council found the advertisement contained a deceptive price claim by misrepresenting the price at which consumers could purchase the vehicle, unconditionally.

The omission of reference to the trade-in, and resulting price representation, also met the conditions of ‘bait and switch’ under the Code, since the advertised vehicle was not available for purchase at the price advertised.

Council also determined that while the advertisement was removed when the error was realized, it did not constitute a corrective notice that would bring the error to the attention of consumers.

It was Council’s unanimous decision that the advertisement was in contravention of Clause 1 (a), Clause 1 (b), Clause 3 (a), and Clause 4 of the Code.

The advertiser agreed with the complainant that the advertisement was not a fair representation of the complexity of the issue because of the limitations of the medium, but did not violate the Code.

The advertiser submitted that despite controversy and public misconception, the warming effect of CO₂ on the climate is much less than previously thought and that other drivers are more influential. The advertiser referred to various sources in an effort to support its position in that regard.

The majority of Council members concluded that the general impression conveyed by the advertisement was misleading.  Council agreed with the advertiser that climate science is complex and that diverse opinions can be beneficial to scientific debate. Council found, however, that the general impression created by the question posed in the advertisement and accompanying images, discounted prevailing scientific knowledge. In reviewing the evidence submitted by the advertiser, Council determined that it was not sufficient to support the general impression of the advertisement.

Majority of Council members agreed that, in some cases, the limited media allowed for simplified imagery without violating the Code. That said, in Council’s view, the resulting image could inform the general impression of the advertisement and that this impression was not corrected by a disclaimer about the images in the advertisement not being to scale.

While the intention of the advertisement may have been to question causes of global warming and generate discussion for debate on the cause of climate change, in Council’s view the effect was to create a misleading general impression that was not supported by competent and reliable evidence.

Council determined that the advertisement was in contravention of Clause 1 (a), Clause 1 (e), and Clause 8 of the Code.

In the view of Council, the general impression conveyed by the advertisement was that if someone paid the advertiser for its services, went through the process, and conceived according to the advertiser’s guidance, then the desired sex of the baby would be guaranteed. However, when Council considered the claims in the advertisement against the advertiser’s submissions, these submissions reflected anecdotal, rather than scientific, support. Anecdotal evidence on its own does not amount to competent and reliable evidence that is sufficient to support an advertising claim under the Code.

Council acknowledged that if the advertiser is successful in getting its work approved by a post-secondary institution, then there is potential for that institution to validate the claims with reliable evidence and a scientific basis in the future. However, if a claim is made in an advertisement, then there must be existing supporting data at the time the claim is made and there is no such support at this time.

On these bases, Council found that the advertisement was in contravention of Clauses 1(a), 1(e) and 8 the Code.

In this case, Council looked at the advertisement in its entirety, and determined that the information was presented as statements of fact, rather than opinion. This requires supporting evidence, and the advertiser did not provide any such support for its claims. For these reasons, Council was unanimous in its decision that the general impression conveyed by the advertisement was misleading and that the claims made were not supported by competent and reliable evidence, in contravention of Clauses 1 (a) and (e) of the Code.

Further, in the view of Council, some of the claims made in the advertisement, including those about radiation and government control, stoked fear in the reader. A majority of Council therefore found that the commercial played “upon fears to mislead the consumer” in contravention of Clause 11 of the Code.

In summary, the advertisements were deemed to contain inaccurate, deceptive or otherwise misleading claims and statements, which were not supported by competent and reliable evidence. Further, all members believed that these advertisements played upon fears in order to mislead consumers.

For these reasons, Council was unanimous in its decision that the advertisements were in violation of Clauses 1(a), 1(e) and 11.

When advocacy advertising is considered under the Code, Council is instructed not to evaluate the advertising based on their personal views of the subject. The Code does not prohibit or restrict any particular position or argument, provided that in communicating its message the ad complies with the standards of truthful, fair, and accurate advertising prescribed under the Code.

Council determined that the language in the advertisement was expressed as a statement of fact and not opinion, and as a result had to be accurate and supportable. Council was of the view that the advertiser’s reasons as to why abortion is not health care were overly narrow and not persuasive. Abortion is covered by the health care system in Canada and is a medical procedure leading Council to the unanimous view that it was misleading to state that abortion is definitively not health care. Council held that the advertisement was in violation of Clause 1(a) of the Code.

Council considered Clause 11 of the Code. The majority of Council was of the view that the advertisement did not play on fears in an attempt to mislead the public. There was a concern raised that a vulnerable population may be misled to believe that abortion is not covered under the Canadian health care system, however, this was not the prevailing view of Council.

Advertiser further advised, on behalf of the influencer and itself, that the originally posted video could not be amended nor referenced with any notice or disclaimer for consumers since it was permanently removed within 24 hours of its original posting.

Following a review of the original posting by the influencer, before amendments, Council was unanimous in its decision that it was in violation of Clauses 2 and 7 of the Canadian Code of Advertising Standards. Council also was unanimous in its thanks for the advertiser and the influencer working to ensure that this error was corrected for subsequent posts.

The majority of Council members found the price match offer was in violation of Clause 5 of the Code as conditions and exclusions were not fully explained, either online or by the customer service representative with whom the complainant spoke.

Although not a majority, some Council members believed that the offer was also in violation of Clause 1(b) and 1(c) since the promotion of the offer omitted relevant information or was not clearly stated, leading to confusion by consumers.

Clause 6 states that advertisements must not unfairly discredit services, companies, or entities or exaggerate the nature of differences. According to Council, the crossing out of the word ‘bank’, combined with the emphasis on the advertiser being ethical, conveyed a general impression that unfairly exaggerated differences between the advertiser and banks. The general impression conveyed was that the advertiser was ethical, while banks are unethical. For these reasons, the majority of Council members found a violation of Clause 6 of the Code.

A minority of Council members were of the view that the advertisement was encouraging consumers to choose the advertiser if a bank had turned them down because the advertiser was ethical. According to these members, the crossing out of the word ‘bank’ implied that this was no longer an option if a bank had denied a loan to a consumer. However, this was not the prevailing view of Council.

The advertiser disagreed that their advertisement depicted or encouraged unsafe driving, and pointed out that their advertisement included a disclaimer at the beginning that the vehicles were driven by professional drivers on a closed course, and were driving safely at all material times. The advertiser believed that the disclaimer was prominent, and that the use of special effects and a non-public roadway further demonstrated they were providing a fanciful demonstration. The advertiser denies that any high speeds were attained by the vehicles, pointing out that one of their screen shots showed a relatively low rate of speed. The advertiser also denied that any street racing had been shown.

The advertiser indicated that the advertisement ceased being shown in late autumn, with no plans to use it again.

Council thanked the advertiser for its response and explanation of their advertising, all of which assisted in their review.

Council carefully reviewed all elements of the advertising and the overall message as received by its audience. Council unanimously believed that there were insufficient fanciful elements to conclude that the ad did not depict unsafe driving. . For instance, in one scene, the two cars were shown facing each other in what might be understood to be ‘playing chicken’ – increasing speed as they raced toward each other. The use of neon lights were only special effects, replicating what would otherwise be tire marks. The driving manoeuvers appeared to Council to be possible for someone to attempt to replicate in the real world.

The displayed console option noted by the complainant is a feature of the product, and as such is outside of the scope of Council’s review. The advertiser’s decision to feature it, however, in the context of the ad was relevant to Council’s assessment and overall interpretation of the ad.

Council also determined that the disclaimer at the beginning of the advertisement was not sufficiently legible to offset the lack of regard for safety otherwise depicted, and glamourized in the ad.

For these reasons, Council members were unanimous in their decision that the advertising was in violation of Clause 10 of the Code as it showed a disregard for safety that might reasonably be interpreted as encouraging unsafe or dangerous practices, or acts.

First, Council agreed that an ‘organic’ post sponsored by an advertiser promoting its product meets the definition of advertising even if no ad placement was purchased from the social media platform.

Council was unanimous in its decision that this advertisement was in contravention of the provisions of Section VIII of the Spirits Code, since it did not include any statement encouraging responsible drinking as prescribed under this section.

Council was also unanimous in its decision that there was a violation of sub-paragraph 1 of Section I (Social Responsibility).  Council noted that the size of the characters and their positioning appeared to be disproportionate, which gave an impression of immoderate alcohol consumption. This was emphasized by the character’s use of one of the beverages as a bar stool while being fed another drink by the dolls. The combination of these elements was determined to be neither responsible nor moderate, as provided for in this section of the Spirits Code.

Council also considered the advertising in light of another provision of the Spirits Code, specifically under Section II (Adult Audience).  Sub-paragraph 3 of this section prohibits the use of known cartoon figures, well-known names of seasonal characters, or any characters, mythical or real, whose primary appeal is to persons under the legal purchase age.  In this respect, Council considered the intention of this ‘compliance plus’ Code for the wording used in this section. Council unanimously interpreted it as a definitive statement meaning that regardless of the targeted audience, those characters shall not be included in beverage alcohol advertising materials. On this basis, Council members were unanimous in their determination that this advertisement was in contravention of section II. 3 of the Spirits Code.

Council understood that there was no intent by the advertiser to target an audience under the legal drinking age. However, Council highlighted that the hashtag including the name of a childhood fictional character may have negated any attempt made by the advertiser to prevent the post from being accessible to a larger audience, including those under the legal drinking age. Indeed, Council was concerned that the ad, by way of its hashtag, could be seen by anyone seeking the primary character’s name in a general online search. Council recommended that the advertiser considers the ad in its entirety, including the list of hashtags, for future attempts at age-gating its social media posts.