Description:
The influencer posted a video to her social media page speaking about her experience and comfort level when meeting with the brand for her tattoo session, including how much she enjoys his work and advice. There was a call-out that appeared at the top of the screen throughout the video that read, “Thanks again! @punkassholyroller”.
Complaint:
The complainant alleged that the video was misleading because the influencer did not disclose the material connection between herself and the brand, specifically, that she received his work for free in exchange for her endorsement.
Response:
Although Ad Standards requested a response from both the brand and the influencer with regards to the complainant’s allegations, only an acknowledgement of receipt was sent to Council by the influencer.
Decision:
Council members considered the ad together with the complaint, the information provided by the complainant in support of their allegation, as well as their own online due diligence.
After much discussion based on the material before them, Council members were of the view that the brand gifted a tattoo to the influencer at no charge and that the influencer consequently posted a video about it.
One Council member also noted, “Tattooing is a service and part of that service is the ideation of the design, not just the physical work, so she is ultimately promoting his business.”
According to Council members, this exchange of service for an endorsement is material and should have been disclosed in the influencer’s video, which it was not.
Council found that the advertisement omitted relevant information, resulting in a deceptive ad that also brought the testimonial/endorsement into question, and unanimously held the ad violated Clause 1(b) and Clause 7 of the Code.
Infraction:
Clause 1(b), Clause 7
