Description:
An outdoor poster from chooselife.ca featured a picture of a toddler along with the text “Unique Fingerprints. 10 weeks from conception” and a call out to the URL chooseLife.ca.
Complaint:
The complainant challenged that the advertisement was misleading as it stated that “unique fingerprints” develop at 10 weeks from conception, whereas the complainant understood that research indicates a fetus does not develop unique fingerprints until approximately 19 weeks from conception. The complainant also objected to the ad featuring an image of a toddler while the claim pertained to a 10-week old fetus.
Response:
Although Ad Standards requested a response from the advertiser, there was no response sent to Council.
Decision:
Council considered the ad together with the complaint.
Through their own independent online research, Council members identified different opinions regarding the development of fingerprints. However, a majority of sources indicated that unique fingerprints form at approximately 19 weeks, rather than 10 weeks, as claimed in the advertisement. Given that the advertisement specifically referenced “unique fingerprints,” Council determined that, based on their reasonable findings, the claim was inaccurate and misleading, thereby breaching Clause 1(a) of the Code. Some Council members further noted that the picture of a toddler contributed to a misleading overall impression of the advertisement.
Additionally, as the advertiser failed to provide any evidence to support the claim, the Council found that the ad also breached Clause 1(e), which provides that all advertising claims and representations must be supported by competent and reliable evidence, which must be disclosed to Ad Standards upon request.
Infraction:
Clause 1(a) and Clause 1(e)
Appeal:
An appeal hearing was requested by the advertiser.
The case was treated as a new complaint and the matter reconsidered in its entirety by an Appeal Panel consisting of Panel members who did not participate in the original Council deliberation. The Appeal Panel appreciated the advertiser’s response and carefully considered the submissions in the advertiser’s appeal.
The advertiser challenged the Council’s initial determination and provided the Appeal Panel with a link to various sources from a third-party organization in support of its claim related to early fingerprint development. The advertiser shared that the organization from which this information came was a credible source and had been verified and approved by field-experts who carefully fact checked the entire program, including the scientific references.
In considering the matter at length, an important detail the Appeal Panel noted was the distinction between a “fingerprint” and an “epidermal ridge”. The later term referring to the ridges (i.e. bumps and grooves) below the top/outer layer of the skin. These ridges connect to form wavy extensions that become visible patterns on the skins surface, known as fingerprints. “Epidermal ridges are not fingerprints…it’s misleading to call them fingerprints”, stated one Appeal Panel member.
In the Appeal Panel’s review of the provided material, as well as its own research, it found that fingerprints are not permanently formed until at least the end of week 17, and that it is the epidermal ridges that form at 10 weeks. According to the unanimous views of the Appeal Panel, by wording the claim that way, it suggests something stable and permanently formed creating a misleading impression that a fetus of 10 weeks has fully formed fingerprints, which does not occur until the 18th week. This misleading general impression was further enhanced by depicting the image of a toddler accompanying the claim about fetal development.
One Appeal Panel member cautioned that using true and fact-based research to support a non-fact-based conclusion by taking a precursor developmental stage and presenting it as if it is the final result conflates the two and is an approach that should not be employed.
When it came to the relied-upon evidence provided, the Appeal Panel unanimously found that it did not meet the threshold of competent and reliable evidence as required under Clause 1(e) of the Code. Not only was some of it as outdated as 1973 and 1991, but some of the data also suggested fingerprints form at 17+ weeks, bringing the advertised claim into question.
The Appeal Panel unanimously determined the advertisement contained an inaccurate, deceptive or otherwise misleading claim that was not supported by competent and reliable evidence, in contravention with Clause 1(a) and 1(e) of the Code.
In an effort to help educate the industry and build consumer trust in advertising, the Appeal Panel members have requested the following information be shared with this decision: while not an issue that was up for debate during this discussion, the Appeal Panel members felt that the advertisement played upon fears to mislead the consumer.
Infraction After Appeal:
Clause 1(a) and Clause 1(e)
