Description:
A social media post featured the influencer’s weekend itinerary, including details of the car they were using and the accommodation where they stayed. The post did not disclose any material connection with the brands or products mentioned.
Complaint:
The complainant alleged that the post failed to include any disclosure indicating the existence of a material connection between the influencer and the brands mentioned in the video, specifically the car manufacturer and the accommodation provider.
Response:
Although Ad Standards requested a response from the influencer, there was no response sent to Council. Both the car manufacturer and hotel responded to Ad Standards’ request for comments.
In its response to Council, the hotel clarified that it did not have any relationship with the influencer. Rather, the hotel was selected for the campaign and the room was paid for. The car manufacturer replied that it had believed that the material connection had been accurately disclosed by the influencer within their post, but confirmed that the post was amended to include a disclosure of the material connection.
Decision:
Council appreciated both responses and considered them in conjunction with the post.
Council determined that the absence of disclosure rendered the post to be misleading, as the nature of the influencer’s partnership with the car manufacturer was not made clear. Given that the material connection had not been disclosed, Council unanimously concluded that the post was presented in a manner that concealed the fact that it was an advertisement, contravening Clause 2 of the Code.
Furthermore, a majority of Council members also found that the post omitted relevant information regarding the partnership in place. This omission was considered likely to create a misleading impression of the ad and resulted in insufficient context regarding the influencer’s opinion or experience with the featured product, contravening Clauses 1(b) and 7 of the Code.
Infraction:
Clause 1(b), Clause 2, Clause 7
