Description:
The advertisement promoted an assortment of some of the advertiser’s products that all came as a single collection set. The ad depicted an image of each individual product available in the set as you scroll through the series of images. The size of each product was displayed on the label and differed between the ‘single’ product shots and the ‘collection set’ product shots. More specific details about the promotional offering were noted further down on the webpage, which included the size of the products being offered in the set.
Complaint:
The complainant ordered the product, but felt misled once it arrived, because he discovered that the size of products in the set were smaller than the product images depicted in the advertisement.
Response:
In its response to Council, the advertiser submitted that the single product shots depicted in the ad were of the full/regular size products for the purpose of highlighting the specific details of each product, and that the actual product sizes included in the collection set were clearly visible in the collection set photograph and were also outlined in the product details section further down on the same webpage that consumers would have seen because it remained on screen at all times.
Decision:
Council appreciated the advertiser’s response, and considered the complaint together with the advertiser’s submission.
One Council member found there was no violation because the product description on the webpage outlined the specific sizes of the set items being offered, adding that it is reasonable to expect consumers to scroll down a webpage to look at the product description, especially when the first photo being shown in the ad is of the actual product being sold with the accurate size of each product visible. This finding was not the prevailing view of Council, however.
A majority of Council members found the general impression conveyed by the ad was misleading. Of particular concern was when viewing the ad in mobile view the ‘add to cart’ option was displayed above the product details section that clarified the size of the product being offered, and the product details were located below the fold, so consumers would not be able to readily review them. These Council members concluded the product illustrations should have been qualified by noting they are not representative of the actual product.
Council held that the ad contained a misleading representation in contravention with Clause 1(a) of the Code.
Infraction:
Clause 1(a)
