2021 Complaint Case Summaries

Clause 1: Accuracy and Clarity

Clause 1: Accuracy and Clarity

Advertiser:	Telus
Industry:	Telecommunication - Phone Service
Region:	Quebec
Media:	Newspaper
Complaint(s):	1
Description:	The full-page advertisement stated in large font, “Canadians spend less on wireless than Americans.” Beneath that, in smaller font, the advertisement further claimed, “It’s a myth that Canadians pay some of the highest wireless prices in the world. The average Canadian household spends just 1.6% of their disposable income on wireless versus 2.6% in the US. – PWC Canada.”
Complaint:	The complainant alleged that the advertisement is misleading, that it is not a myth that Canadians pay some of the highest wireless prices in the world, since affordability is not the same as pricing. The complainant referred to a publicly available article showing that prices in Canada were either the highest or second-highest among the reviewed countries.
Advertiser Response:	Although Ad Standards requested a response from the advertiser, there was no response sent to the Council.
Decision:	Council considered each of the 3 sentences in the advertisement to determine whether the general impression conveyed was misleading. While there was no material submitted by the advertiser to Council to substantiate its claims, Council reviewed the study cited as support in the advertisement. Council determined that the two claims about spending – that Canadians spend less on wireless than Americans, and that the average Canadian household spends a smaller percentage of their disposable income on wireless versus in the U.S. – were supportable by the cited study. Council was satisfied that these claims were accurate and truthful. However, there was no support in the cited study for the claim that it is a myth Canadians pay some of the highest prices in the world for wireless. The study discussed affordability, rather than prices, and it only addressed 4 countries in total, rather than most, or all, countries in the world. Council determined that if Canadians are spending a smaller percentage of disposable income on wireless than Americans, it does not necessarily follow that the prices for wireless are lower in Canada than they are in the U.S. In Council’s view, the advertisement incorrectly conflated affordability and pricing, and in assessing the truthfulness and accuracy of the advertisement, this claim strongly impacted the general impression conveyed. For the reasons above, Council was unanimous in its decision that the advertisement contained misleading claims in contravention of Clause 1(a) of the Code.
Infraction:	Clause 1 (a)

Clause 1: Accuracy and Clarity

Clause 1: Accuracy and Clarity
Advertiser:	R&D Healthcare
Industry:	Health - Medical Device
Region:	Ontario
Media:	Newspaper
Complaint(s):	1
Description:	The advertisement appeared in a newspaper article format with a highlighted heading promoting the sale of N95 masks as being, ‘finally back in stock’ and that ‘consumers are stocking up’. The advertisement talked about the COVID-19 pandemic and that the situation is getting worse, adding that stocking up on masks has created major shortages in the supply chain. Throughout the advertisement, the advertiser was identified as, “the company behind the masks” and “the company distributing the masks”; however, a telephone number to the advertiser’s customer care department was listed together with a call to action to call the company right away if interested in learning more.
Complaint:	TThe complainant questioned the legitimacy of the advertiser and the product being advertised given the advertiser omitted its name from the advertisement. In addition, the complainant alleged that the advertisement took advantage of people’s fears about the COVID-19 pandemic to sell its product.
Advertiser Response:	In its response to Council, the advertiser submitted that while the seller’s name is not prominently displayed in the advertisement, the fact that it is a ‘paid advertisement’ is prominently displayed and that the advertiser’s 1-800 customer care telephone number is listed linking the individual to a sales service person, who will identify the advertiser to the caller. The advertiser also submitted that this ad was a ‘teaser advertisement’ and thus does not have to identify the advertiser in the ad. Furthermore, the advertiser submitted that the Government of Canada’s official position is that people should be afraid of a COVID-19 infection, to the point of drastically changing their habits, including wearing proper face masks when physical distancing is not possible. In addition, the advertiser felt that the complaint was unfounded because it was nothing more than a politically motivated attempt by an anti-masker to stop the distribution of masks.
Decision:	Council appreciated the advertiser’s response, and considered the complaint together with the advertiser’s submissions. In its assessment, Council unanimously determined that the advertisement was misleading, as the advertiser did not clearly identify itself in the advertisement. The fact that the advertisement was designed to look like a news article only supported that misrepresentation. Council added the fact that the advertisement was prefaced with a ‘paid advertisement’ heading was irrelevant because that is simply an editorial step taken by the newspaper itself. While the advertiser’s position, in part, was that the ad was a ‘teaser advertisement’ and thus it did not have to identify itself in the ad, Council did not share that view, as under the Code, a ‘teaser advertisement’ is defined as “an advertisement that generally reveals little about the product(s), service(s), event(s) or advertiser hinted at in the advertisement, the objective of which is to stimulate curiosity about and interest in the advertiser, product(s), service(s) or event(s).” For these reasons, Council unanimously found the advertisement to be misleading, in contravention of Clause 1(f).
Infraction:	Clause 1 (f)

Clause 1: Accuracy and Clarity: Clause 2: Disguised Advertising Techniques

Clause 1: Accuracy and Clarity: Clause 2: Disguised Advertising Techniques
Advertiser:	Hearst Magazine Media, Inc.
Industry:	Leisure Service - Other
Region:	British Columbia
Media:	Print
Complaint(s):	1
Description:	The advertiser sent a letter promoting an “Exclusive Offer” for its “Preferred Subscribers” to two of its magazines. The envelope stated it was from “House Beautiful Office of Credit & Adjustments” and stated, “Important Account Information”, “Do not Discard”.The letter itself was entitled “Preferred Subscriber Claim Form” providing a stated rate, deducting substantial “Credit Adjustment” to result in a final and “Your Adjusted Rate” representing a savings of more than 80% of the initial rate. The letter went on to explain to the complainant that he had been issued a one-time rate adjustment, which could be applied as a rate reduction within the requisite timeframe. The letter stated in bolded capitalized font, “Your Credit is Not Transferable.”
Complaint:	The complainant alleged that the letter was misleading, as it implied the complainant had existing credit available, which was not the case.
Advertiser Response:	Although Ad Standards requested a response from the advertiser, no response was sent to the Council.
Decision:	Council considered whether the advertisement misled recipients into thinking they had an existing account with the advertiser, and credit owed to them. The envelope gave the impression that its contents were addressing an existing customer. The letter itself contributed to this impression, as it detailed the credit amount and the resulting discounted price for the magazine subscription. Council noted how substantial the discount was. Because the recipient did not in fact have existing credit with the advertiser, Council was unanimous in its finding that the advertisement was inaccurate and misleading in contravention of Clause 1(a) of the Code. Council further determined that the advertisement was presented in a style that made it seem like it was giving information to recipients about existing credit, which concealed the fact that it was an advertisement. This was particularly the case of the outer envelope, on which the recipient would rely to determine how to treat the mailer upon receipt. As such, Council was unanimous in its finding this contravened Clause 2 of the Code. It was noted by Council and the complainant in this case that the nature of the communication might be understood by sophisticated consumers, but that the elderly and those less familiar with similar marketing techniques would be more likely to be misled. Council determined that it did not have enough information to assess whether there was also a violation of Clause 3 in this case. The amount of the savings advertised suggested that this may be an unrealistic price comparison or exaggerated savings claim. Without further information available, and since the advertisement was already found to be in contravention under two other clauses, Council did not proceed to adjudicate the case under Clause 3.
Infraction:	Clause 1 (a) and Clause 2

Clause 1: Accuracy and Clarity; Clause 3: Price Claims

Clause 1: Accuracy and Clarity Clause 3: Price Claims
Advertiser:	Bloomex Inc.
Industry:	Retailer
Region:	National
Media:	Online Advertisement
Complaint(s):	1
Description:	The website advertisement promoted a carnation floral arrangement for a casket. The webpage contained an image of the arrangement and information about pricing and sizes. Directly beneath the image, the webpage stated “Compare at $119.00!” and next to the image, the prices were listed at $99.99 with a crossed out in red $149.99 price as well, and a statement that customers will save $50.00. The advertisement also included a 4.7/5 star rating “based on 1510 Customer Reviews”.
Complaint:	The complainant alleged that the advertisement lacked clarity around information material to a purchasing decision, including the number of flowers compared to greenery each size contained, the confusion caused by the three different prices given, and the lack of further information available to support the star rating. The complainant further questioned whether this was perpetually on sale.
Advertiser Response:	In its response to Council, the advertiser submitted that it compares its bouquets to the suggested price for its network of affiliated florists, and provided a link to another online flower arrangement retailer for reference. The advertiser also provided its review table for the product in question to support the star rating claim.
Decision:	Council considered the advertisement together with the advertiser’s submissions under Clauses 1 and 3. Under Clause 3, the majority of Council found that, given the three different prices listed, there was a lack of clarity around the regular price of the product, in contravention of Clause 3(a). Providing both a “compare at” price and a comparison crossed-out price created confusion about whether the reference prices referred to the market in general, or to the advertiser’s own prices. Further, no evidence was provided to Council to substantiate actual sales made at any given price point, or when the arrangement was offered at the claimed ‘compare at’ or regular prices. It was also not possible to determine whether the image shown reflected the advertised price, or if a consumer would need to pay more for the size of arrangement shown. For these reasons, Council was unanimous in its decision that the general impression conveyed by the advertisement was misleading, and that pertinent details were not clearly stated regarding the pricing and the customer ratings, in contravention of Clauses 1(a), 1(c), 3(a) and 3(b).
Infraction:	Clause 1 (a) and (c), Clause 3 (a) and (b).

Clause 1: Accuracy and Clarity; Clause 8: Professional or Scientific Claims; Clause 11: Superstitions and Fears

Clause 1: Accuracy and Clarity Clause 8: Professional or Scientific Claims Clause 11: Superstitions and Fears
Advertiser:	Dr. Squatch, Inc.
Industry:	E-commerce
Region:	National
Media:	Social Media (YouTube)
Complaint(s):	2
Description:	In two YouTube advertisements promoting the sale of soap to men, the advertiser claimed that “big soap” (i.e. other commercial brands) included harmful synthetic chemicals that are linked to “depression, liver damage, cancer, low sperm count and dry skin”, implying that using this company’s soaps will keep men from facing these severe health conditions. In addition, the advertiser claimed that its soaps were “all natural” and “healthier”.
Complaint:	The complainants alleged that the advertising was false, misleading and played on viewers’ fears to mislead about the risks associated with using commercial brands’ soaps. The complainants further stated that these claims were scientific in nature, but were not backed up with any references that were relevant to the Canadian marketplace.
Advertiser Response:	The advertiser submitted that all claims made in its advertising were ‘supported by peer-reviewed, scientific study,” and provided Council with several studies from a large number of sources, primarily from the United States and the European Union. Two references were made to guidelines from Health Canada about the maximum quantity of certain chemicals permitted in cosmetics. Reference was also made to a definition of “brand bars and body washes” which were classified as “synthetic detergent” by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The advertiser further stated that its product is classified as an actual soap by the FDA, not a detergent contrary to many other commercial soaps. The advertiser further submitted that the Code does not prevent advertising from including substantiated claims even if they contrast with government’s position, i.e. Health Canada’s position.
Decision:	Council members carefully analyzed the advertisements and the response received. All recognized the relative humour in the ads. However, Council reaffirmed that the onus is on the advertiser to provide competent and reliable evidence to support its claims. Council unanimously agreed that none of the studies provided were sufficiently robust to support the severe health condition claims alleged in the advertisements. Indeed, some of the studies appeared to be still ongoing or were deemed inconclusive and were not relevant to the Canadian market. Council members discussed the safety requirements of Health Canada, which limit the amount of any potentially harmful cosmetic ingredient (the so-called ‘Ingredient Hotlist’). On this basis, Council found that some of the advertiser’s claims were misleading since all soaps in Canada must comply with these limits. Council members also discussed the statements made by the advertiser that “the majority of” or “most other” soaps contain chemicals that will damage men’s health; but determined that neither were scientifically justified nor supported as required under the Code. For these reasons, Council members were unanimous in their decision that the advertising included unsubstantiated and inaccurate claims in violation of Clauses 1(a), 1(e), and also played upon consumer fears, by over-stating risks associated with the use of commercial soaps, to mislead consumers in contravention of Clause 11 of the Code. A majority of Council members agreed that given that the health claims implied that they had a scientific basis they did not truly possess, the advertising was also in violation of Clause 8 of the Code.
Infraction:	Clause 1(a), Clause 1(e), Clause 8 and Clause 11.
Advertiser's Verbatim Statement:	Dr. Squatch respectfully disagrees with the conclusion reached in the Decision at issue for the reasons cited in its response and reserves all rights to make advertising claims in the future that are supported by competent and reliable evidence in Canada. However, Dr. Squatch has voluntarily amended the advertisements at issue to address the Decision.

Clause 1: Accuracy and Clarity; Clause 10: Safety; Clause 11: Superstitions and Fears

Clause 1: Accuracy and Clarity Clause 10: Safety Clause 11: Superstitions and Fears
Advertiser:	Vaccine Choice Canada
Industry:	Non-commercial – Advocacy
Region:	National
Media:	Out-of-Home – Billboard, Poster
Complaint(s):	10+
Description:	Billboard advertising showed the image of two very young children together with reference to COVID-19 vaccination with added wording “Know the Dangers” on one side plus, on the other side, “Masks, Distancing, Lockdowns … Are They Working?”
Complaint:	Complainants expressed deep concern about the promotion of mis-information that could lead to adverse health outcomes, especially because they included pictures of young children who were not eligible for vaccines at the time the complaints were received, together with prominent use of the word “Dangers”.
Advertiser Response:	The advertiser did not respond to the enquiries by Ad Standards.
Decision:	Council members considered the use of images of young children, perceived to heighten emotional engagement, especially in such close association to the words “Know the Dangers.” Notably, this ad was displayed prior to children being eligible to receive any COVID-19 vaccine. Without a response from the advertiser, Council members were left to interpret the advertiser’s intended message, and were presented with no support for the implied claim that there were ‘dangers’ relevant to children associated with the vaccines. In Council’s view, the use of the imagery of children and the reference to dangers, misleads the public about risks of demonstrable harm related to COVID-19 vaccination for children that are not substantiated. Council members determined that different wording, such as “understand the information”, might have resulted in a different finding in this case. Additionally, in isolation, the right side of the billboard which asks “Are They Working?” about masks and lockdowns, is likely not a violation of the Code. However, the ad must be evaluated as a whole. The effect of putting the messages side by side means that two children appear in the ad at a time when no vaccinations were available for children. Council members unanimously determined that the advertisement was in violation of Clause 11 of the Code since it plays upon fears to mislead consumers. The majority of members also determined that the advertisement was in violation of Clauses 1 (a) and (e) since the advertisement made inaccurate and otherwise misleading claims, and no evidence was made available to Ad Standards. In addition, the majority of members determined that the advertisement displayed a disregard for safety by encouraging unsafe or dangerous practices through discouraging vaccinations, recognized as an important and necessary pandemic public health measure, in violation of Clause 10.
Infraction:	Clause 1(a), Clause 1(e), Clause 10 and Clause 11.

Clause 1: Accuracy and Clarity; Clause 11: Superstitions and Fears

Clause 1: Accuracy and Clarity Clause 11: Superstitions and Fears
Advertiser:	John Adams & Friends
Industry:	Non-commercial / Advocacy
Region:	National
Media:	Television
Complaint(s):	6
Description:	Two related advertisements asked that the border between the USA and Canada be opened ‘now’, and included the statements “Free Your Hostages” plus “saying the fully vaccinated can transmit Covid without showing us actual cases is not science or fact – it’s fear.”
Complaint:	Use of hostage images and references, prominent use of the word “fear” and claims about governments keeping loved ones apart resulted in confusion and fear by viewers. The images together with the words used were an exploitation of fears and spread false information about the pandemic and vaccines. Although not stated in the advertisement, one complainant believed that the advertisement conveyed the impression that the pandemic was false and that the vaccines did not work.
Advertiser Response:	There was no response from the advertiser.
Decision:	Council members reviewed the advertising submitted and the complaints. Council members also reviewed Interpretation Guideline #6 with respect to advocacy advertising, and the need for such messages to remain truthful, fair and accurate. Council members unanimously agreed that the general impression conveyed by the advertisement was inaccurate, deceptive and misleading, with its use of both statements and illustrations. Equating Canadians as hostages created a false general impression about the nature of the imposed restrictions. Further, no provincial premiere has control over border openings or closings as inferred by the ad. The inaccuracy and images misled Canadians about the overall effectiveness of the vaccines as well as the travel restrictions put into place to minimize the spread of COVID-19 during a pandemic event. Members unanimously agreed that this advertisement was also in violation of Clause 11 in that its exaggeration and misinformation played upon fears to mislead Canadians.
Infraction:	Clause 1 (a) and Clause 11.

Clause 2: Disguised Advertising Techniques; Clause 7: Testimonials

Clause 2: Disguised Advertising Techniques Clause 7: Testimonials
Advertiser:	Influencer Marketing – The Perfect Hoop + Madison K
Industry:	Jewellery
Region:	National
Media:	Social Media (Instagram)
Complaint(s):	1
Description:	Three posts by the Canadian influencer “Madison K” showed The Perfect Hoop jewellery but were not identified as advertisements. One of the posts referred to the jewellery having been gifted to her by the advertiser. She tagged the advertiser but did not indicate the posts were sponsored content. Another social media post was made by the Canadian-based advertiser The Perfect Hoop using the same photo of the influencer as she had already posted on Instagram, also without any reference to there being any material connection between the two.
Complaint:	Complainant alleged that by not revealing that there was a material connection between the advertiser and the influencer, consumers were misled and unable to assess the posts as advertisements.
Advertiser Response:	The advertiser declined to respond, other than to state their belief that these were not advertisements and that the complainant had not contacted them about the posts.
Decision:	Council reviewed the posts by both the advertiser and the influencer, in light of the Code, as well as Interpretation Guideline #5 – Testimonials, Endorsements, Reviews and the Influencer Disclosure Guidelines published by Ad Standards. Council also considered the definition of advertising under the Code, namely that it is “any message… controlled directly or indirectly by the advertiser with an intent to influence consumer’s choice, opinion or behaviour.” Council also considered the differences between the posts by the advertiser and by the influencer. Unfortunately, the advertiser did not provide sufficient information for Council to determine the relationship between the brand and the influencer. Since the advertiser used the influencer’s picture, Council had no option but to infer that there was an agreement or relationship between them. Unfortunately, there is no information about whether that agreement incorporated directions to the influencer about proper disclosure of a material connection in her posts. Following considerable discussion by Council members, it was unanimously determined that the influencer was in violation of Clauses 2 and 7 of the Code. Where there is a material connection, both the advertiser and influencer are responsible for ensuring that the appropriate disclosures are included to identify her posts as advertisements.
Infraction:	Clause 2 and Clause 7

Clause 14: Unacceptable Depictions and Portrayals

Clause 1: Accuracy and Clarity

Clause 1: Accuracy and Clarity
Advertiser:	House maintenance
Industry:	House maintenance service
Region:	National
Media:	Television
Complaint(s):	1
Description:	The advertiser’s commercial promoted its services for exterior home maintenance and made claims that after using its products and services for a specific part of a house, consumers would “never” need to do their own maintenance on that part of the house again.
Complaint:	The complainant alleged that the television commercial was misleading because further maintenance would be required after using the advertiser’s products and services.
Advertiser Response:	In its response to Council, the advertiser submitted that it provides its customers with a warranty with a 100% guarantee on the efficacy of its product. The warranty further provides that if the product fails to perform a specific function, the advertiser will service and /or repair the problem or provide a full refund for its products. Practically, this means that consumers would not need to do any maintenance.
Decision:	Council considered the complaint and the advertiser’s submissions and appreciated the information provided by the advertiser. 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.
Infraction:	Clause 1 (a) and (b).

Clause 1: Accuracy and Clarity

Clause 1: Accuracy and Clarity
Advertiser:	House maintenance
Industry:	House maintenance service
Region:	National
Media:	Television
Complaint(s):	1
Description:	The advertiser’s commercial promoted its services for exterior home maintenance and made claims that after using its products and services for a specific part of a house, consumers would “never” need to do their own maintenance on that part of the house again.
Complaint:	The complainant alleged that the television commercial was misleading because further maintenance would be required after using the advertiser’s products and services.
Advertiser Response:	In its response to Council, the advertiser submitted that it provides its customers with a warranty with a 100% guarantee on the efficacy of its product. The warranty further provides that if the product fails to perform a specific function, the advertiser will service and /or repair the problem or provide a full refund for its products. Practically, this means that consumers would not need to do any maintenance.
Decision:	Council considered the complaint and the advertiser’s submissions and appreciated the information provided by the advertiser. 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.
Infraction:	Clause 1 (a) and (b).

Clause 1: Accuracy and Clarity

Clause 1: Accuracy and Clarity
Advertiser:	Retailer
Industry:	Department Store
Region:	Regional
Media:	Digital
Complaint(s):	1
Description:	Email promoted a sale with “up to 60% off the original price” on certain items, including as-is and scratched/dented merchandise, and a clickable banner immediately below the offer saying ”Shop Now”.
Complaint:	The complainant thought that the “Shop Now” banner was connected to the 60% off offer. When complainant clicked on “Shop Now”, the offers presented did not match the email.
Advertiser Response:	The advertiser explained that the 60% off offers were available at in-store events only. According to the Advertiser, the “Shop Now” button was printed in a different colour from that used to announce the other discounts. The advertiser further advised that it believed that most Canadians understood the distinction between their regular in-store event and the online offer.
Decision:	Council members reviewed the advertising submitted and the complaint, together with the advertiser’s response. Council members appreciated that the colour of the ‘shop now’ banner was different from the rest of the initial banner media immediately above. However, they also noted that there was a discounted amount written in the same colour within the banner area above, and further, that there was no space between the two types of sales being promoted. 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.
Infraction:	Clause 1 (a), (b) and (c).

Clause 1: Accuracy and Clarity

Clause 1: Accuracy and Clarity
Advertiser:	Retailer
Industry:	E-commerce
Region:	National
Media:	Digital
Complaint(s):	1
Description:	Retailer’s advertisement for a number of items included what appeared to be a prohibited item available for purchase, although at a much lower price than might normally be expected for such an item.
Complaint:	Complainant alleged that the advertisement promoted the sale of an item that is prohibited for sale in Canada.
Advertiser Response:	Advertiser, a platform allowing others to post items for sale, advised Ad Standards that the item identified by the complainant was misidentified. The item for sale was actually a small desk item that carried an image of an item that was prohibited for sale in Canada. Although it appeared to have been a misunderstanding, the advertiser removed the item from Canadian media. The advertiser did not publish a correction notice, and so the ad was reviewed by Council.
Decision:	Council thanked the advertiser for its explanatory response. Council members reviewed the advertising and the media in which it had been made available. Because no information was included to describe the item being promoted, and the image was ambiguous, the advertisement was considered to be inaccurate and lacked clarity. Council also considered that consumers could not seek further information without downloading the retailer’s app. In other words, a number of other steps were required to learn exactly what was for sale. 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.
Infraction:	Clause 1 (a) and (b).

Clause 1: Accuracy and Clarity

Clause 1: Accuracy and Clarity
Advertiser:	Retailer
Industry:	Telecommunications
Region:	National
Media:	Digital (Owned Website)
Complaint(s):	1
Description:	The website advertisement promoted a telecommunication plan with the option of sharing data.
Complaint:	The complainant understood the advertisement offered the option of sharing data for the advertised set price. However, upon signing in to accept the promotional offer, the complainant discovered at final check-out that the advertised offer was per phone line with the requirement of having a minimum of two phone lines, in effect doubling the cost quoted in the advertisement.
Advertiser Response:	In its response to Council, the advertiser clarified that details of all types of plans offered were available on the website by clicking through within the labelled tabs. The advertiser also noted that on the initial landing page of the advertisement, it was clearly stated that all users had to be members of the advertised plan in order to share data.
Decision:	Council thanked the advertiser for its response, which assisted in the review. Council members reviewed the advertising submitted by each of the complainant and the advertiser, and recognized that some relevant information was missing from the initial offer screens, especially since even Council members who examined the representations carefully were unsure of the actual terms of the offer. Further, in Council’s view, consumers should have been alerted up front, and before starting the purchase process, that the promotional offer was per phone line. This material fact should be included in the ad for the offer. 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.
Infraction:	Clause 1 (a) and (b).

Clause 1: Accuracy and Clarity

Clause 1: Accuracy and Clarity
Advertiser:	Online Retailer
Industry:	Retail - Food
Region:	National
Media:	Digital - Owned Website
Complaint(s):	1
Description:	The advertiser’s website included a banner offering free delivery for orders over a specified amount. A second banner offered delivery of food items as a new service available in the neighbourhood.
Complaint:	Complainant alleged that the banners led consumers to believe that all deliveries would be free if a specified amount of money was spent. However, the complainant stated there was a charge for food item delivery.
Advertiser Response:	Advertiser advised that its e-commerce platforms for food and for general merchandise operated separately behind the site and that each offered different delivery options. The delivery offers were differentiated by two differently-coloured banner ads for two types of delivery options.
Decision:	Council members thanked the advertiser for sending their explanation, which assisted in their understanding of the offers. 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).
Infraction:	Clause 1(a) and Clause 1(c)

Clause 1: Accuracy and Clarity

Clause 1: Accuracy and Clarity
Advertiser:	Retailer
Industry:	Restaurant and Bar
Region:	National
Media:	Television, You Tube
Complaint(s):	6
Description:	There were two (2) TV ads each promoting a change to the ingredients in one of the advertiser’s products by using an absolute claim that the change was “only” made in a specific way. This was further emphasized throughout both ads by using other absolute terms to reinforce the validity of the absolute claim being made in the ad.
Complaint:	The complainants questioned the validity of the advertiser’s claim as they felt it was impossible to make such an absolute claim, which made the ad misleading.
Advertiser Response:	In its response to Council, the advertiser submitted that its absolute claim was indeed true and provided a letter of attestation from its supplier. The advertiser added the caveat that during certain times when it is not possible to change its product in that specific way, that the advertiser may make minor adjustments, if necessary; adding however, that such time(s) are so rare and such a small percentage that they do not impact the validity of the claim.
Decision:	Council appreciated the advertiser’s response, and considered the complaint together with the advertiser’s submissions under Clause 1, Accuracy and Clarity, of the Code. Council also applauded the advertiser for making a positive change to its product. 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).
Infraction:	Clause 1(a)

Clause 1: Accuracy and Clarity

Clause 1: Accuracy and Clarity
Advertiser:	Retailer
Industry:	Retail
Region:	British Columbia
Media:	Newspaper
Complaint(s):	1
Description:	The advertisement promoted a liquidation sale of ‘up to’ a certain percentage off assorted items available for purchase to customers, while supplies last. Included in the ad was an image of a map depicting the location of the sale together with an address and hours of operation for same. Some additional terms were also listed in the ad; including, acceptable methods of payment, and current pandemic protocols in place.
Complaint:	The complainant questioned the legitimacy of the ad given the advertiser omitted its name and contact information from the ad and that the location of the sale depicted in the ad was a location of a building that had been vacant and unused for years.
Advertiser Response:	In its response to Council, the advertiser submitted that the building was indeed a building on their property that they occasionally use for storage, but in this case, they used it for this short liquidation sale. The advertiser also submitted that while it understands the ad may have been vague on the details of who was responsible for the event, the event was legitimate, all sales were run through the advertiser’s store computer connected to their main POS system, and that any remaining product not sold would be donated to charity.
Decision:	Council appreciated the advertiser’s response, and considered the complaint together with the advertiser’s submissions under Clause 1(f). Under this Clause, the advertiser must be clearly identified in the advertisement, except the advertiser of a “teaser advertisement” as that term is defined in the Code. 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.
Infraction:	Clause 1(f)

Clause 1: Accuracy and Clarity

Clause 1: Accuracy and Clarity
Advertiser:	Lawn Care Company
Industry:	Household Goods – Cleaning & Maintenance
Region:	National
Media:	Television
Complaint(s):	1
Description:	The television advertisement promoted the advertiser’s lawn care product as being “the only one” to provide a certain benefit.
Complaint:	The complainant questioned the truth of the statement that this product alone had the advertised capability.
Advertiser Response:	In its response to Council, the advertiser submitted that it has the exclusive rights to the active ingredient in the product, and that the message in the advertisement was related to the uniqueness of the product’s technology rather than it being the only solution available.
Decision:	Council appreciated the advertiser’s response, and considered the complaint together with the advertiser’s submissions. 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.
Infraction:	Clause 1 (a)

Clause 1: Accuracy and Clarity; Clause 3: Price Claims

Clause 1: Accuracy and Clarity Clause 3: Price Claims
Advertiser:	Automotive Manufacturer
Industry:	Automotive
Region:	National
Media:	Social Media (Facebook)
Complaint(s):	1
Description:	Advertisement promoted an offer for one of their models during a special sales event, with a link to the Canadian home page to obtain details. The advertisement stated that the offer was “just $xxx a month for 48 months” to own a specific vehicle.
Complaint:	Complainant alleged that retailer’s advertisement did not clearly provide important details about the offer or the vehicle in close proximity to the offer. It forced potential buyers to check out a website to learn what the offer was about, and then discover relevant terms and conditions. Complainant took the extra steps and was disappointed to subsequently realize that the vehicle promoted was a past year’s model, that the offer was for a lease arrangement and not a purchase, and that a relatively large down payment was required, plus added fees, before the advertised offer could be considered valid.
Advertiser Response:	Advertiser confirmed their offer, and advised that all offer details were included on the advertiser’s website. They acknowledged that relevant disclaimers and details were not included with or in close proximity to the social media post during the campaign offer. They acknowledged that the wording in their advertisement did not include language inferring that the quoted amount was contingent on meeting other qualifications or that the posted offer was for a lease, not a purchase. The Advertiser’s response included a statement that future offers would include material terms in closer proximity to provide clearer understanding for potential customers.
Decision:	Council thanked the advertiser for its response and understanding of the need to provide material information in all advertising. Council members discussed the accuracy of the social media post and whether it fairly represented the offer to potential customers. Although not all information can be included in a social post, material conditions should be included before a consumer has to click through. Of particular concern were (i) the lack of language indicating that other conditions applied to take advantage of the quoted pricing, (ii) the model year of vehicle, and (iii) the omission of the word “lease” anywhere in the advertisement, when the word “own” used elsewhere in the advertisement created the false general impression the offer was for a purchase of the vehicle. 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.
Infraction:	Clause 1 (a), (c) and Clause 3(a).

Clause 1: Accuracy and Clarity; Clause 3: Price Claims

Clause 1: Accuracy and Clarity Clause 3: Price Claims
Advertiser:	Retailer
Industry:	Retail (Dept. store)
Region:	National
Media:	Digital (Display ad)
Complaint(s):	1
Description:	An animated digital advertisement on a third party’s website promoted the advertiser’s product at a discounted price. The link led to the advertiser’s own website where the same product was listed at a higher price.
Complaint:	The complainant was disappointed that the price on the advertiser’s website was almost twice as much as the price listed in the advertisement on the third party’s website.
Advertiser Response:	In its response to Council, the advertiser stated that there had been a technical problem in the pricing feeds used to advertise the item. The advertiser then blocked the item from any further digital ads to correct the error. The advertiser stated that they were unable to post a correction notice since they did not control the targeted audience from the third party’s site.
Decision:	Council considered the options available to the advertiser, including posting a corrective notice on its own website, if posting a corrective notice through the third party was not possible. Ad Standards was unable to resolve the matter administratively since no correction notice was posted. 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.
Infraction:	Clause 1(a) and 3(a).

Clause 1: Accuracy and Clarity; Clause 3: Price Claims; Clause 4: Bait and Switch

Clause 1: Accuracy and Clarity Clause 3: Price Claims Clause 4: Bait and Switch
Advertiser:	Retailer
Industry:	Automotive - General
Region:	National
Media:	Website
Complaint(s):	1
Description:	An automotive retailer advertised a vehicle for sale on its website for a specific price, with no other visible caveats, disclaimers and/or terms and conditions associated with the advertisement.
Complaint:	The complainant alleged that the advertisement was deceptive because there was a vehicle trade-in requirement as a condition of the offer that was not disclosed in the advertisement. Therefore, when the complainant went to purchase the vehicle, the price was more than the price that was advertised on the advertiser’s website. Since the vehicle was not available at the advertised price, the complainant also felt that this was a ‘bait and switch’.
Advertiser Response:	In its response to Council, the advertiser submitted that their promotion had been removed from their website.
Decision:	Council appreciated the advertiser’s response. 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.
Infraction:	Clause 1(a) and (b), Clause 3(a), and Clause 4.

Clause 1: Accuracy and Clarity; Clause 8: Professional or Scientific Claims

Clause 1: Accuracy and Clarity Clause 8: Professional or Scientific Claims
Advertiser:	Not-For-Profit
Industry:	Non-Commercial (Advocacy)
Region:	Alberta
Media:	Out-of-Home Billboard
Complaint(s):	1
Description:	Through words and images in an out-of-home billboard advertisement, the advertiser encouraged viewers to question the causes of climate change.
Complaint:	The complainant alleged that the advertisement was not a fair representation of the complexity of the issue of global warming, or the science surrounding it. The complainant purported that the advertisement made inaccurate representations by visually overemphasizing natural factors, and by directing viewers to question if carbon emissions are the primary reason for climate change.
Advertiser Response:	In its response to Council, the advertiser submitted that the purpose of the advertisement was to stimulate the public’s interest on the topic of global warming and to generate discussion about it. The advertiser highlighted that the advertisement invited engagement and critical thinking. 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.
Decision:	Council appreciated the advertiser’s response and evidence, and considered the complaint together with the advertiser’s submissions. 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.
Infraction:	Clause 1 (a), (e) and Clause 8.

Clause 1: Accuracy and Clarity; Clause 11: Superstitions and Fears

Clause 1: Accuracy and Clarity Clause 11: Superstitions and Fears
Advertiser:	Advocacy Group
Industry:	Non-Commercial Advocacy
Region:	National
Media:	Print – Magazine, Newspaper
Complaint(s):	1
Description:	Two advertisements by the same advertiser and appearing in close proximity to each other, each highlighted in a different colour. One of the advertisements made a number of statements about the COVID-19 vaccine followed by the group’s website address to learn more. The other advertisement listed a number of patents filed in the United States together with a statement apparently made by a PhD, again leading readers to the group’s website.
Complaint:	The statements made in the first advertisement were intended to mislead with claims designed to make readers believe that the government was seeking control of individuals. The list of patents in the second advertisement were not for the virus as inferred, and were not all even for vaccines relevant to COVID-19, so also misled consumers and played upon fears.
Advertiser Response:	The advertiser responded, but offered no support for their claims or statements.
Decision:	Council members discussed the two advertisements in depth with respect to the relevancy of the claims made, the reference to a phrase that is not in use in or relevant to Canada, provocative language and claims, and the association of the two advertisements placed so closely together in bright colours, all of which resulted in lack of clarity, misleading statements, and playing upon fears related to COVID-19. Although requested, the advertiser provided no evidence or support of any kind for any of the statements made. Council members believed that claims in the ad were written to create fear and confusion. One advertisement listed a sequence of statements suggesting that vaccines are contributing to a dystopian society, and the second advertisement contained inaccurate references. 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.
Infraction:	Clause 1(a), Clause 1(e), Clause 11

Clause 2: Disguised Advertising Techniques; Clause 7: Testimonials

Clause 2: Disguised Advertising Techniques Clause 7: Testimonials
Advertiser:	Influencer Marketing
Industry:	Food Products
Region:	National
Media:	Social Media
Complaint(s):	1
Description:	Influencer promoted a new food product that had been received by her for trial or testing.
Complaint:	Complainant was concerned that none of the promotional posts revealed the nature of any relationship between the advertiser and the influencer, which resulted in complainant not knowing if the posts reflected the influencer’s own organic review or if the advertiser paid for the posts.
Advertiser Response:	Advertiser stated there was no paid consideration for the posts by the influencer, although they had sent the product to her as a gift. Advertiser subsequently worked with the influencer to have the posts amended to identify that the samples sent were free, and also to include references that these were each a “#Sponsored #Ad” in close proximity to the endorsement, i.e. in the main caption of each post, as set out in the Disclosure Influencer Guidelines published by Ad Standards. 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.
Decision:	Council very much appreciated the full response from the advertiser. The subsequent amendments to the post disclosed the material connection between the influencer and the advertiser, and the amended ad therefore complied with the Code. 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.
Infraction:	Clause 2 and Clause 7.

Clause 5: Guarantees

Clause 10: Safety

Clause 10: Safety
Advertiser:	Automotive Retailer
Industry:	Automotive - Safety
Region:	National
Media:	Television
Complaint(s):	2
Description:	The television advertisement showed two vehicles driving towards each other and in circles around each other while performing what might be termed stunt driving, all taking place at what appeared to be at a high speed.
Complaint:	Complainants believe the advertisement showed irresponsible behaviour and reckless driving. One complainant was concerned about a displayed console option, which might be normally understood to encourage driving at unsafe speeds when considered as part of the whole of the advertisement. Both complainants indicated that the disclaimer referencing professional drivers and a closed course at the beginning of the advertisement was too small to be legible.
Advertiser Response:	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.
Decision:	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.
Infraction:	Clause 10 (Safety)

Identified Cases

Non-Identified Cases