Council agreed with the complainant that the image did not accurately represent what was offered, implying that sides were included with the food item the complainant wished to order. On this basis, Council unanimously determined that the ad contained an inaccurate or otherwise misleading illustration or representation in contravention of Clause 1(a).

Additionally, Council noted the item was listed in close proximity to other food items that were offered as ‘meals’ and determined that the advertisement could have been clearer, upfront, to indicate that the item was an individual item in contrast to the ‘meal’ items. For these reasons, a majority of Council members concluded that the ad omitted relevant information and pertinent details were not clearly and understandably stated, in contravention of Clauses 1(b) and (c).

The Council recognized that the limited-edition gifts offered with purchase were strong incentive for consumers. Council members also considered the general impression the ’limited-edition’ claim would convey, especially in the context of the ads celebrating New Year, and were of the opinion that the term would not be interpreted as meaning in limited quantities. Rather ‘limited-edition’ meant that it was a special or seasonal offer. However, despite making purchases on two separate occasions from the specified collections on the days the ads were displayed, the gifts were not received as advertised. On this basis, Council was unanimous in finding that the advertisements were misleading, containing deceptive or otherwise misleading representations in contravention of Clause 1(a) of the Code.

Furthermore, Council noted that the ads were still in circulation after the promotion was over. By omitting to disclose or direct consumers to the expiry dates associated with the promotional offers, Council unanimously determined that the ads omitted relevant information resulting in advertisements that were misleading in contravention of Clause 1(b).

Upon Ad Standards’ request for a copy of the full terms and conditions governing the advertised offer, the advertiser provided a screenshot of a disclaimer from the mortgage company’s website that stated, in part, that the offer was for a specific short-term/limited-time, and that there would be an additional percentage charged as an administrative fee if the borrower chose not to renew into an undisclosed longer-term mortgage rate.

A couple of Council members felt the product/service being advertised was an unusual one in the sense that it was not a typical mortgage offer in the eyes of consumers because it was for such a short term with its own specialized circumstances, including an undisclosed: (i) non-renewal penalty; and (ii) renewal rate that would likely be at par or greater than that of major banks. As a result, these Council members found the ads contained inaccurate, deceptive or otherwise misleading claims, statements, illustrations or representations under Clause 1(a) of the Code; however, that was not the prevailing view of Council.

The majority of Council members found that the ads omitted relevant information resulting in the ads being misleading under Clause 1(b) of the Code. In coming to that conclusion, Council found that a mortgage term as short as this one should be flagged to consumers given how uncommon it is, and while only one of the ad’s referred to governing terms and conditions, it was unclear to Council what these terms and conditions were, and where consumers could go to find a copy. The additional administration fee for non-renewal, as well as the undisclosed longer-term mortgage rate, were material information that should have been provided to consumers to assist them in making a fully informed purchase decision, Council determined. That said, one Council member had an opposing position, and found so long as the mortgage was attainable at the rate advertised (albeit not common), the ad did not omit relevant information in that regard; however, the location and access to the offer’s terms and conditions was indeed problematic, and resulted in a contravention of Clause 1(b).

As it relates to the disclaimer, Council unanimously found the ads contravened Clause 1(d) of the Code. One of the ads did not contain a necessary disclaimer at all. While the other ad included an asterisk next to the mortgage rate directing readers to a disclaimer indicating that terms and conditions applied for eligible participants, Council took issue with the fact that the disclaimer was written vertically along the side of the ad, was too small, and lacked important information, as noted above.

Given that the Code violation was obvious, and that the advertiser acknowledged there was a mistake with the advertisement at issue and confirmed that they have permanently withdrawn the erroneous advertisement, Council determined a debate of the complaint’s merits was not necessary and held that there was a violation of both Clause 1(a) and Clause 1(b) of the Code.

Given that the Code violation was obvious, and that the advertiser acknowledged there was a mistake with the advertisement at issue and confirmed that they have corrected the erroneous advertisement, Council determined a debate of the complaint’s merits was not necessary and held that there was a violation of Clause 1(a), Clause 1(b), and Clause 1(c) of the Code.

Council recognized that there was no intent to mislead. However, in assessing the truthfulness and accuracy of an ad under the Code, the concern is not with the intent of the advertiser. Rather the focus is on the general impression conveyed by the ad.

Council unanimously found that the advertisement contravened Clause 1(a) and Clause 3(a) of the Code. Council agreed that, although the banner portion of the ad included an accurate claim regarding the ‘Buy One Get One’ promotional offer, the erroneous sub-text altered the general impression of the main message conveying a misleading impression under Clause 1(a) and resulting in promoting a deceptive discount under Clause 3 (a).

The majority of Council found that there was no contravention of Clause 4 of the Code as this was an error that was quickly corrected and there was no intention to bait and switch consumers.

Council recognized that the email was sent to eligible customers, which meant the recipients would be more likely to be familiar with this type of offer and plan. However, they found that the information, although available in the ad, could have been presented in a clearer manner and a precision about the point of comparison, leasing vs. buying, could have been added in the ad to avoid any confusion. Indeed, the majority of Council members affirmed that the information included in the ad was technically accurate, but presented in a way that conveyed a misleading impression.

For these reasons, the majority of Council members found that the ad contravened Clause 1(b) of the Code by omitting relevant information that would have made the discount and comparison between the two plans easier to understand. A majority of Council members determined that the advertisement also contravened Clause 1(c) due to pertinent details not being understandably stated within the content of the ad, namely that one had to join a specific plan to benefit from the discount.

Some Council members found that the advertisement raised an issue under Clause 1(a) and Clause 1(d) due to a misleading representation of the discount and a disclaimer that contradicted the general impression conveyed by the ad. A Council minority also found that the ad further breached Clause 3(a) of the Code as they considered that the savings associated with the comparison resulted in an exaggerated advertised discount. However, this was not the prevailing view among Council.

Council was unanimous in acknowledging the complaint had merit in light of the advertiser’s submissions.

Council members considered the complaint under Clauses 1(a), 1(b) and Clause 3(a) of the Code. Council recognized that there was no intent to mislead. However, in assessing the truthfulness and accuracy of an advertisement under the Code, the concern is not with the intent of the advertiser. Rather the focus is on the general impression conveyed by the ad.

All Council members agreed that the advertisement had breached all aforementioned Clauses of the Code, omitting relevant information that created a misleading impression about a promotional price that was not applicable to the specific variety the consumer wished to purchase.

Council was of the view that the characterization of fabric A as being different than fabric B, when in fact fabric A is a form of fabric B, was misleading and also unfairly disparaging to the competitor as it exaggerated the nature of the competitive differences. Council unanimously agreed that the advertisement violated Clause 1(a) and Clause 6 of the Code.

The majority of Council found that the advertisement gave the general impression that the testimonial represented the genuine opinion of the individual identified in the photo. No indication suggested that the photo accompanying the testimonial was not the actual photo of the individual endorsing the advertised service. Furthermore, some Council members were of the opinion that the person’s photo was an integral part of the testimonial and contributed to the overall accuracy of the representation. On this basis, a majority of Council concluded that the use of stock photos alongside endorsements contravened Clause 1(a) of the Code. Some Council members indicated that they would not have considered it to be a contravention had there been an indication that the image is not the actual customer providing the testimonial.

Council members also examined the complaint under Clause 7 of the Code, which provides that testimonials must reflect the genuine opinion of the individual making such representations about the product or service and must not otherwise be deceptive. The majority of Council determined that the use of stock images undermined the credibility of the endorsements, which did not reflect the genuine opinion or experience of the actual person making the endorsement. This impression was emphasized by the fact that the advertiser did not confirm whether the testimonial associated with the individual truly reflected his genuine opinions.

On this basis, the majority of Council concluded that the photos impacted the overall credibility of the testimonial, ultimately making it deceptive, and thereby contravening Clause 7.

A minority of Council members did not believe the photo was, in the context presented, an integral part of the testimonial and that the use of stock photos to illustrate testimonials did not affect the veracity of the endorsements. If the product being advertised had been directly linked for instance to a result on physical appearance, their opinion may have differ.

The advertiser did not provide clarifications on the complainant allegations challenging the nature of the material relationship between the author of the post and the endorsed product.

Council determined that the author of the post would be considered the advertiser, regardless of whether it was an influencer or an incorporation. The intent of the post was to influence consumers’ choice, opinion or behaviour and therefore, Council confirmed that the post met the Code definition of advertising.

The majority of Council members agreed that the advertisement contravened Clause 1(b) of the Code by omitting relevant information, in this case, the nature of the material relationship between the influencer and the endorsed product. They also determined, by not being transparent about the nature of the material connection, the ad resulted in a contravention of Clause 7 of the Code, namely that such connection could have biased the review or affect how much weight readers give to the influencer’s positive feedback about the product.

A minority of Council members were concerned that the advertiser was not clearly identified in the advertisement as prescribed under Clause 1(f) and that the post was presented in a style that concealed the fact that it was an advertisement in contravention of Clause 2. However, this was not the prevailing views of Council. Indeed, the majority of Council determined that the issue with the post lied in the omission of the nature of the material connection between the influencer and the product and not in its identification as an advertisement.

Given that the Code violation was obvious, and that the advertiser acknowledged there was a mistake with the advertisement at issue and confirmed that they have permanently withdrawn the erroneous advertisement, Council determined a debate of the complaint’s merits was not necessary and unanimously held that there was a violation of both Clause 2 and Clause 7 of the Code.

Council noted that the advertiser’s name only appeared in small font in the disclaimer and that the ad was focused on the failed delivery attempt and on the call to action to reschedule a delivery. On this basis and in conjunction with the disclaimer alerting recipients that they may be asked to participate in a product demo, Council held that the postcard was a disguised attempt to make an appointment with the recipient to be able to deliver a sales pitch, and was not in fact a delivery attempt. It also determined that the use of the smiley face in conjunction with language about an attempted delivery implied that the postcard came from a well-known delivery company in order to incite people to call the advertiser.

Council members unanimously held the advertisement to be in contravention of both Clauses 2 and 9 of the Code.