Description:
The influencer posted a video on their social media platform promoting a specific hair care product that they use and explaining why they love it.
In the caption accompanying the video, the influencer tagged the brand using the “@” symbol, and the hashtag #BrandPartner [referencing the specific name of the brand]. The video had no disclosure at all.
Complaint:
The complainant alleged the advertisement was misleading because it did not include the required disclosure notifying the public that the influencer had a material connection with the brand.
Response:
In its response to Council, the brand confirmed that there was a material connection between the influencer and the brand in the form of a paid partnership.
Decision:
Council appreciated the advertiser’s response, and considered the complaint together with the advertiser’s submission.
Council unanimously agreed that the advertisement contravened Clause 1(b) of the Code given the material connection between the influencer and the brand was not disclosed in the video itself, which, in Council’s view, would create doubt in the minds of viewers as to whether or not there was a material connection with the brand. This omission resulted in an advertisement that was deceptive. Further, Interpretation Guideline #5 – Testimonials, Endorsements, Reviews to the Code makes it clear that if a material connection exists, that fact and the nature of the material connection must be clearly and prominently disclosed in close proximity to the representation about the product or service. In this case, because the disclosure was not included within the video where the representation was made, there was a violation of Clause 7 of the Code.
Infraction:
Clause 1(b), Clause 7
