Description:
Funkanometry posted a video of a dance choreography in a dealership showroom. The caption tagged Dodge, RamTrucks and included the hashtag “#ComoxValley”.
Complaint:
The complainant found the post misleading as the relationship between the dance group and the dealership was not accurately disclosed in the ad. The complainant found that there was no indication of this being a paid partnership.
Response:
In its response to Council, the dealership confirmed that the post was a paid sponsorship. The dance group added that they were not aware of a need to disclose the material connection.
Decision:
Council considered the complaint together with the advertiser’s response.
Council members considered that the post clearly displayed an endorsement. While some Council members believed that the context of the ad made the material connection between the dealership and the dance group sufficiently clear, a majority concluded that a disclosure of the paid partnership should have been included in the post.
Council found that, although it was evident there was a paid partnership between the dance group and the dealership, the information in the post, including the hashtags, was not sufficient to disclose the material connection to the average viewer.
Furthermore, while some Council members felt that the lack of disclosure undermined the authenticity of the dance group’s testimonial, the majority determined that the ad did not present a deceptive opinion from the individuals in contravention of Clause 7.
For these reasons, Council found that the advertisement contravened Clause 1(b) of the Code, given the ad omitted relevant information, which rendered it to be misleading.
Infraction:
Clause 1(b)
Appeal:
The advertiser requested an Appeal of Council’s position.
The Appeal Panel appreciated the advertiser’s response and carefully reviewed the advertiser’s appeal letter, as well as reconsidered Council’s original decision.
The advertiser confirmed that the advertisement had been removed from all platforms, and explained that Funkanometry was unaware of the disclosure requirements under the Influencer Marketing Disclosure Guidelines.
The Panel evaluated the post in its entirety. While the text of the post may have suggested it was an ad, the video itself did not disclose the material relationship. As a result, the Panel found that the post as a whole did not clearly disclose the material connection between the dance group and the car dealership.
For these reasons, Panel members unanimously found that the advertisement contravened Clause 1(b) of the Code, given the ad omitted relevant information, which rendered it to be misleading. This decision was consistent with Council’s initial decision.
Infraction After Appeal:
Clause 1(b)
