The Check Mark
Learn more about our updated Clearance Services Check Mark.
2023 Complaint Case Summaries
Identified Cases
Clause 1: Accuracy and Clarity | |
Advertiser: | Heartbeat International |
Industry: | Advocacy – Pro-life |
Region: | Ontario |
Media: | Out-Of-Home - billboard |
Complaint(s): | 1 |
Description: | The advertisement stated: “Already Kicking!” and “7 weeks from Conception”. The copy was accompanied by an image of a baby holding a soccer ball and the URL of a website to be used if someone is pregnant and needs help. |
Complaint: | The complainant took issue with the claim that a 7 week old fetus is the size of a full term baby, with fully formed limbs and the ability to kick a soccer ball. The complainant argued that this misleading information was potentially harmful to youths, women and people who have uteruses. |
Advertiser Response: | Although Ad Standards requested a response from the advertiser, there was no response sent to the Council. |
Decision: | 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 considered whether the claim made in the advertisement was misleading under Clauses 1(a) and 1(e) of the Code. In its analysis, the majority of Council found that the complaint should be upheld under Clause 1(a) of the Code, and unanimously held that the complaint should be upheld under Clause 1(e) of the Code.
Council members reviewed the complaint, the advertisement, and since no scientific evidence was provided by the advertiser to support its claim, Council members also did some research on fetal development in order to assess the claim. Clause 1(e) of the Code provides that all advertising claims and representations must be supported by competent and reliable evidence, and that the advertiser must disclose that evidence to Ad Standards upon its request. Despite Ad Standards’ request, the advertiser failed to provide the evidence on which it relied to make the claim, and as a result was held to have contravened this requirement under the Code. In discussion of a potential violation of Clause 1(a), numerous Council members advised of information that they had found online and through prenatal books which outlined the stages of development. Based on the information presented at Council, it was agreed that the evidence does not support that claim that fetuses have feet at 7 weeks post conception. Some Council members also noted that the overall impression of the advertisement was that a fetus at 7 weeks after conception resembled a baby of several months of age as depicted in the visual of the ad. The majority of Council held that since a fetus was not “already kicking” and could not hold a ball as depicted in the billboard, the ad contained an inaccurate, deceptive or otherwise misleading representation in contravention of Clause 1(a). |
Infraction: | Clause 1(a), Clause 1(e) |
Advertiser’s Statement | While the URL referenced in the advertisement belongs to Heartbeat International, Heartbeat International has advised Ad Standards that it did not place this ad and is not aware of who did. |
Clause 1: Accuracy and Clarity | |
Advertiser: | Holiday Inn Express and Suites Brockville |
Industry: | Hotel and accommodation |
Region: | Ontario |
Media: | Digital |
Complaint(s): | 1 |
Description: | An online search looking for hotels displayed photos of the Holiday Inn Express and Suites Brockville illustrating amenities found at the hotel, including photos of the indoor pool and hot tub. |
Complaint: | The complainant took issue with the online pictures that were linked to the search results for the hotel, implying the hotel included an indoor hot tub, when in fact it did not. The complainant further argued that the photos influenced their decision to book a stay at the hotel. |
Advertiser Response: | In its response to Ad Standards, the advertiser confirmed that the hot tub, as shown in the online photos, was permanently removed during renovations. The advertiser indicated that they were experiencing difficulties accessing their social media page (the images shown in the search results appear to have originated from their social media page). However, they will have the photos removed as soon as they gain access. The photos were still in circulation when Council met to adjudicate the complaint. |
Decision: | Council appreciated the advertiser’s response, and considered the complaint and advertisement together with the advertiser’s submissions.
Council agreed with the complainant that a hot tub could be an important factor influencing travelers’ choice when booking a hotel. Council noted that the hotel’s website did not indicate having a hot tub. However, because its social media page was not up to date and still included outdated photos of the hot tub and claims promoting this added feature, this resulted in misleading consumers on the amenities offered by the hotel. In its analysis, Council unanimously found that the advertisements were misleading, containing inaccurate, deceptive or otherwise misleading representations in contravention of Clause 1(a). |
Infraction: | Clause 1(a) |
Clause 1: Accuracy and Clarity | |
Advertiser: | Home Hardware Stores Limited |
Industry: | Retail – Household maintenance product |
Region: | Ontario |
Media: | Website |
Complaint(s): | 1 |
Description: | A product listing for a specific brand of product on the retailer’s website showed inventory of 2,000 units available at a specific store. The listing indicated that the “brand may be substituted”. The product was not available in store and a substitute was offered instead. |
Complaint: | The complainant took issue with the units of inventory listed for the specific brand where the retailer was aware that they did not actually have stock of that brand due to a stock shortage caused by the brand manufacturer’s labour issues. The complainant argued that this was a bait and switch tactic to bring people into the store on the premise that the brand named product was available, but then only offer a substitute product. |
Advertiser Response: | In its response to Council, the advertiser stated that the listing on its website clearly stated “Note: Brand may be substituted depending on availability at local stores”. The advertiser noted that there was a shortage of the brand name product at some stores, and that those stores had a product from another manufacturer that was comparable quality and function. At the time of the advertiser’s response to Ad Standards, the advertiser was no longer experiencing a backlog of orders of the brand name product. Finally, it noted that it was working with individual stores to update their inventory numbers on a more expedited basis “so as to avoid showing inventory for a particular product, even in situations where it is clear a substitution may be offered.” |
Decision: | Council appreciated the advertiser’s response, and considered the complaint together with the advertiser’s submissions.
Council members unanimously determined that the availability numbers provided for a specific branded product should be accurate and need to reflect the availability of that specific brand of the product. The use of a disclaimer was not helpful to the advertiser in respect of Clause 1(a) because the consumer would assume that the specific brand was available in the quantity shown. Council held that there are brands for a reason, and brands and its availability go hand in hand. Council also considered the issue of bait and switch and specifically whether the disclaimer helped the advertiser in that regard. Clause 4 of the Code provides that advertisements must not misrepresent the consumer’s opportunity to purchase the goods at the terms presented. If supply of the sale item is limited, or the seller can fulfill only limited demand, this must be clearly stated in the advertisement. The majority of Council held that, despite the disclaimer, consumers would go into the store assuming that they were going to be able to purchase the specific brand and then find out that only a substitute was available. As a result, it is Council’s decision that there was a Clause 4 contravention. |
Infraction: | Clause 1(a), Clause 4 |
Advertiser’s Verbatim Statement | Homehardware.ca displayed the incorrect stock available for a product in a specific dealer-owned store, where such product was out of stock but a comparable but competing brand was available. Upon a customer complaint, the product listing amended to include a disclaimer that “In-Store may substitute brand for another product”. Home Hardware regrets any inconvenience this listing may have caused. |
Clause 1: Accuracy and Clarity Clause 8: Professional or Scientific Claims |
|
Advertiser: | Nautilus Family Chiropractic |
Industry: | Health Services |
Region: | Alberta |
Media: | Social Media |
Complaint(s): | 1 |
Description: | An advertisement for a chiropractic clinic included a visual of two neck x-rays with a “before” sticker over the image with a straight spine, and an “after” sticker over the image of a curved spine. The advertisement’s call to action to Calgary men was “Reverse Neck Curve FIXED!” and “Chronic Neck Pain and Headaches GONE!”. Next to the claim, there was a $35 new patient offer. |
Complaint: | The complainant took issue with claim related to the efficacy of treatment. The complainant felt that the results depicted in the images presented in the ad were not achievable using chiropractic intervention. |
Advertiser Response: | Although Ad Standards requested a response from the advertiser, there was no response sent to the Council. |
Decision: | Council members unanimously determined that the advertisement violated Clause 1(a) and Clause 1(e) of the Code. Council felt that while a chiropractic clinic may be able to achieve the results demonstrated, it likely would not be able to do so for every single person and yet there were no limitations set on the “fixed” claim.
On further investigation, Council found that the $35 offer was for an assessment and not for treatment; therefore it would be impossible for a patient’s spine to be fixed as depicted in the advertisement at the advertised price. The juxtaposition of the ‘fixed’ claim with the offer were misleading under Clause 1(a) of the Code. By virtue of the fact that the advertiser failed to provide Ad Standards with support of its advertised claim upon request, Council held that the advertiser was in violation of Clause 1(e) of the Code. Council considered whether the claim violated Clause 8 of the Code. The majority found that there were no scientific claims made within the advertisement and therefore there was not a violation of Clause 8. |
Infraction: | Clause 1(a), Clause 1(e) |
Clause 14: Unacceptable Depictions and Portrayals | |
Advertiser: | Kelowna Right to Life Society |
Industry: | Advocacy – Pro-life |
Region: | British Columbia, Saskatchewan |
Media: | Out-of-Home – billboard and Social Media |
Complaint(s): | 2 |
Description: | A billboard including a profile photo of a young woman as she was standing on a rock looking out over a body of water. The advertisement included the headline “Pregnant!” as well as copy that stated, “My mom is going to kill me!” with an arrow pointed to the young woman’s face, and “My mom really is going to kill me!” with an arrow pointed to the woman’s stomach. |
Complaint: | One complaint noted that the ad was highly offensive. Another complaint noted that there was no supporting evidence to the statements or accompanying explanation, but rather “places the blame” on the woman and may cause women “who have gone through this” to commit suicide. The complaint asserted that the ad was threatening to members of a vulnerable community. |
Advertiser Response: | Advertiser acknowledged receipt of the complaint but declined to respond. |
Decision: | 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 considered whether the claim made in the advertisement was an unacceptable depiction and portrayal under Clauses 14(c) and 14(d) of the Code.
Council held that the ad disparaged those individuals who choose to have an abortion in contravention of Clause 14(c). While some Council members did not take issue with the first statement as a standalone claim given its common figurative sense to express anger rather than physical harm, Council unanimously determined that the second statement in the context of the ad as a whole was problematic under the Code. Specifically, the language that referenced the ‘killing’ of a fetus was denigrating. Killing is generally perceived as a criminal/wrongful act and as a result, the ad attributed a criminal and/or wrongful act to those who abort. This was further reinforced by the use of the wording ‘my mom’ as spoken by a fetus which implied that the fetus was a child. The majority of Council determined that the ad offended the standards of public decency prevailing among a significant segment of the population in contravention of Clause 14(d). |
Infraction: | Clause 14(c) and Clause 14(d) |
Non-Identified Cases
Clause 1: Accuracy and Clarity | |
Advertiser: | Retailer |
Industry: | Restaurant and bar |
Region: | Ontario |
Media: | Advertiser’s app |
Complaint(s): | 1 |
Description: | The menu featured on the advertiser’s app listed food items in various quantities with corresponding photos. Each food item included the numbers of proteins and was illustrated with photos of the products, some shown with side dishes. Some items were advertised as ‘meals’. The specific item the complainant wished to order was not described as a ‘meal’. The accompanying photo of the item showed the proteins along with several side dishes. |
Complaint: | The complainant alleged that the picture associated with the item ordered was misleading because it gave the impression that sides were included, when in fact they were not. |
Advertiser Response: | In its response to Ad Standards, the advertiser confirmed that the item the complainant wished to order did not include sides. The picture associated with the food item was subsequently modified to depict only the advertised number of proteins without side dishes. |
Decision: | Council appreciated the advertiser’s response and corrective action. Because a correction notice was not also published as required for retail advertising, Council considered the complaint and advertisement together with the advertiser’s submissions.
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). |
Infraction: | Clause 1 (a), (b) and (c) |
Clause 1: Accuracy and Clarity | |
Advertiser: | Retailer |
Industry: | Beauty – Cosmetics |
Region: | National |
Media: | Advertiser’s Website |
Complaint(s): | 1 |
Description: | Two advertisements displayed on the advertiser’s website at two separate occasions. One invited consumers to celebrate the New Year and receive a limited-edition gift with the purchase of any item from two specific collections of the cosmetic brand. The other advertisement invited consumers to celebrate New Years and receive two limited-edition gifts with the purchase from a specific collection of the cosmetic brand. Pictures of the limited-edition gifts were included in the customer’s order confirmation. |
Complaint: | The complainant submitted that the limited-edition gifts influenced her decision to order the products. However, despite making purchases on two separate occasions from the collections specified in the ads, the complainant did not receive the gifts as advertised. Upon contacting the advertiser’s customer service regarding the order that was supposed to include two limited-edition gifts, the complainant was informed that one of the orders was placed after the promotion expired and therefore was not eligible for the gift associated with the offer. The customer service representative would investigate the matter for one of the limited-edition gifts that was not received with the second purchase. They indicated that one of the gifts was ‘while supplies last’ was out of stock. However, the complainant indicated placing one order on the first day of the promotional offer and placing the second order three days after the expiry date communicated by the customer service representative, when the ad was still in circulation. The complainant argued that the ads omitted to include or direct consumers to the expiry dates for both promotional offers. |
Advertiser Response: | Although Ad Standards requested a response from the advertiser, there was no response sent to the Council. |
Decision: | Council members considered both the complaint and the advertisements without the benefit of a response from the advertiser.
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). |
Infraction: | Clause 1(a) and (b) |
Clause 1: Accuracy and Clarity | |
Advertiser: | Realtor |
Industry: | Real Estate Service |
Region: | Ontario |
Media: | Social Media |
Complaint(s): | 1 |
Description: | The realtor’s advertisements offered a fixed mortgage rate at a certain percentage and, through a call-to-action, encouraged consumers to apply for the offer. Only one of the two ads included a disclaimer stating that terms and conditions applied for eligible participants. |
Complaint: | The complainant alleged that the advertiser was engaging in deceptive and dishonest marketing practices by offering a mortgage rate in its advertisements that was false and misleading because the rate was much lower than the rates offered by leading banks in Canada. |
Advertiser Response: | In its responses to Council, the advertiser submitted that they are working with a third-party mortgage company to offer the fixed rate advertised. The advertiser provided various screenshots of that mortgage company’s social media posts and its website to demonstrate the advertiser was able to offer the advertised rate because it was also being offered by the mortgage company. The mortgage company’s posts noted that the fixed rate was a limited-time offer for a specific term. The advertiser confirmed that the fixed rate advertised in its ads was also for a specific short-term/limited-time as well.
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. |
Decision: | Council appreciated the advertiser’s responses and considered the complaint together with the advertiser’s submissions.
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. |
Infraction: | Clause 1(b), Clause 1(d) |
Clause 1: Accuracy and Clarity | |
Advertiser: | Retailer |
Industry: | Retail - eCommerce |
Region: | Ontario |
Media: | Online – Advertiser’s Website |
Complaint(s): | 1 |
Description: | The website advertisement offered a new model of equipment for purchase at the advertised price. |
Complaint: | The complainant claimed that the advertised price and availability of the desired product was false because when he telephoned the advertiser, he was advised that the product was unavailable for purchase. |
Advertiser Response: | In its response to Council, the advertiser advised that the advertisement was made in error as they did not have any stock due to a supplier problem. The advertiser also advised that they have permanently withdrawn the ad to address the concern raised. |
Decision: | Council appreciated the advertiser’s response, and considered the complaint together with the advertiser’s submission.
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. |
Infraction: | Clause 1(a), Clause 1(b) |
Clause 1: Accuracy and Clarity | |
Advertiser: | Retailer |
Industry: | Restaurant and Bar |
Region: | British Columbia |
Media: | Social Media |
Complaint(s): | 1 |
Description: | The advertisement offered a discount on a specific product. There was a disclaimer in the ad that addressed certain details about the offer, including that certain rules apply. The ad also featured a visual of the product including some side garnish. |
Complaint: | The complainant alleged that the advertising was misleading because when he went to the restaurant to order the advertised special, he was advised that it did not come with the side garnish as shown in the ad. |
Advertiser Response: | In its response to Council, the advertiser advised that the advertisement was made in error as a result of an inadvertent oversight. The advertiser also advised that they have corrected the ad to address the concern raised. |
Decision: | Council appreciated the advertiser’s response, and considered the complaint together with the advertiser’s submission.
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. |
Infraction: | Clause 1(a), Clause 1(b), Clause 1(c) |
Clause 1: Accuracy and Clarity Clause 3: Price Claims Clause 4: Bait and Switch |
|
Advertiser: | Retailer |
Industry: | Retail – Ecommerce |
Region: | National |
Media: | |
Complaint(s): | 9 |
Description: | The email advertisement celebrating a national food holiday included a banner depicting two food items with a claim promoting a ‘Buy One Get One’ for a discounted price offer. The email included additional copy that included further details about the promotional offer and stated that two food items were available at the discounted price “Get two for $y”. |
Complaint: | The complainants alleged that the ad was misleading because the copy indicated that consumers could purchase two items at the discounted price, when in fact the discounted price was only applicable to the second item purchased when the first item was purchased at full price. |
Advertiser Response: | In its response to Council, the advertiser submitted that the inadvertent error resulted from a technical glitch. Immediate action was taken, the same day of the promotional offer, to correct the error included in the ad copy. The advertiser provided that displeased customers who reached out to them were provided with a store credit as a goodwill gesture for the inconvenience. |
Decision: | Council appreciated the advertiser’s response, and considered the complaints together with the advertiser’s submissions.
Council recognized that there was no intent to mislead. However, in assessing the truthfulness and accuracy of an ad under the Code, the concern is not with the intent of the advertiser. Rather the focus is on the general impression conveyed by the ad. Council unanimously found that the advertisement contravened Clause 1(a) and Clause 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. |
Infraction: | Clause 1(a) and Clause 3(a) |
Clause 1: Accuracy and Clarity Clause 6: Comparative Advertising |
|
Advertiser: | Manufacturer |
Industry: | Consumer Product Manufacturing |
Region: | National |
Media: | Advertiser’s Website |
Complaint(s): | 1 |
Description: | The advertiser’s website had a comparison chart to a competitor’s product. The advertiser’s product was listed as being made from ‘fabric A’ while the competitor’s product was listed as ‘fabric B’. When the product was received by the complainant, the tag said ‘100% fabric B’. |
Complaint: | The complainant stated it is deceiving to claim that a product is made from a fabric that is better than fabric B when it is in fact made exclusively from fabric B. |
Advertiser Response: | The advertiser explained that while fabric A used by the manufacturer is derived from fabric B, the two fabrics have significant differences in their manufacturing processes and resultant properties. In accordance with the federal labeling guidelines, the advertiser had to label the fabric on the actual product as fabric B as that is the generic fibre name under the legislation. The advertiser’s position is that indicating its product is made from fabric A highlights that it is a specialized version of fabric B. The advertiser has since updated its website to provide more details about the fabric used by both itself and its competitor. |
Decision: | Council appreciated the advertiser’s response, and considered the complaint together with the advertiser’s submissions.
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. |
Infraction: | Clause 1(a), Clause 6 |
Clause 1: Accuracy and Clarity Clause 7: Testimonials, Endorsements, Reviews |
|
Advertiser: | Retailer |
Industry: | House renovation service |
Region: | Québec |
Media: | Advertiser’s website |
Complaint(s): | 1 |
Description: | At the bottom of each page of the advertiser’s website, various testimonials were featured, endorsing the quality of the service provided by the advertiser. Each testimonial included a photo, the first name and the profession of the person making the testimonial. |
Complaint: | The complainant alleged that the glowing testimonials featured on the advertiser’s website were not genuine. Specifically citing the testimonial of an individual who shared his positive experience with the product and service received. The complainant noted that the photo of the individual accompanying the testimonial was taken from a stock image library. |
Advertiser Response: | In its response to Council, the advertiser confirmed that the stock images associated with the testimonials were removed from its website. However, no further information was provided by the advertiser regarding the veracity of the person’s testimonial as requested by Ad Standards. |
Decision: | Council appreciated the advertiser’s response, and considered the complaint and advertisement together with the advertiser’s submissions.
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. |
Infraction: | Clause 1 (a) and Clause 7 |
Clause 2: Disguised Advertising Techniques Clause 7: Testimonials, Endorsements, Reviews |
|
Advertiser: | Digital Media Publisher |
Industry: | Influencer/Content Marketing |
Region: | Ontario |
Media: | Social Media |
Complaint(s): | 1 |
Description: | The video reel highlighted various fun facts about a specific product that would be meaningful to Canadians. Some of these facts related directly to one brand of the product, and brand images of the product were shown for all of the facts. |
Complaint: | The complainant took issue with the fact that the video was not labelled as an advertisement when it was clearly sponsored content. The complainant was misled into watching the video as they believed it would be generic Canadian fun facts about a product generally. |
Advertiser Response: | In its response to Council, the advertiser advised that the advertisement was inadvertently served without the affiliated ‘paid tag’. The advertiser also advised that they have permanently withdrawn the ad to address the concern raised. |
Decision: | Council appreciated the advertiser’s response, and considered the complaint together with the advertiser’s submission.
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. |
Infraction: | Clause 2, Clause 7 |
Clause 2: Disguised Advertising Techniques Clause 9: Imitation |
|
Advertiser: | Service Provider |
Industry: | House Maintenance Services |
Region: | Ontario |
Media: | Direct Marketing Ad - Postcard |
Complaint(s): | 1 |
Description: | A postcard stating that the provider of the postcard had attempted to deliver a package (all shipping prepaid). The postcard provided a toll-free number to call to arrange for a time for delivery, along with a smiley face. In fine print, it was noted that the consumer may be requested to participate in a product preview, and provided the name of the ‘sponsor’. |
Complaint: | Consumers were misled to believe that there was a failed attempted delivery of a package as a result of both the words included on the postcard and the inclusion of a smiley face that resembles a logo used by a well-known delivery service. The complainant asserted that the postcard was deliberately misleading and designed to have consumers call the number in order for the advertiser to be able to schedule an appointment to have a salesperson provide a demo about the advertiser’s products. |
Advertiser Response: | The advertiser argued that postcards were sent to people who had completed surveys for them in the past, and were an attempt to provide them a gift for allowing the advertiser to do a product presentation in the recipient’s home. The bottom of the postcard indicated the product presentation requirement. There was no attempt to mislead anyone with the use of the happy face. |
Decision: | Council appreciated the advertiser’s response, and considered the complaint together with the advertiser’s submissions.
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. |
Infraction: | Clause 2, Clause 9 |