Description:
A call-out appearing on a rotating banner on the advertiser’s website, as well as on a store webpage on an online retailer platform, promoted the advertiser’s products as being certified by a specific third-party organization, signifying the products meet the organization’s strict health standards and have ingredients that are free from its list of concerned chemicals.
An FAQ area of the advertiser’s website noted that some of their products do not yet have this third-party verification and therefore do not carry said certification seal.
Complaint:
The complainant alleged the advertisements made false claims and were misleading because he ordered one of their products and subsequently discovered it contained an ingredient that is considered harmful by the third-party organization.
Response:
In its response to Council, the advertiser submitted that there are two-levels of advertising to consider, being, messaging at the brand-level and messaging at the product-level, and that the two should not be conflated. This distinction, according to the advertiser, is an important one not to be misconstrued.
For context, the brand-level banner advertisement automatically appears across the store webpages to describe its brand and products in general terms referencing the certification in the generic brand context. In contrast, the product-level listing-title and/or product-page description on the store webpages expressly describe the specific products that have the certification.
This distinction clearly differentiates between products that are certified and products that are not, like the product the complainant purchased, which the advertiser alleged was not advertised as certified in the product-level advertising.
In terms of the substantiation requested in support of the claim, the advertiser submitted that the product purchased by the complainant was not represented in its advertising as having the third-party certification and therefore, no such substantiation is required, adding that the product continues to receive excellent scored ratings from the third-party organization that there are no concerning ingredients in the product given its very low level of health concerns.
Decision:
Council appreciated the advertiser’s response and considered the complaint together with the advertiser’s submissions.
According to Council, even on the product-level page in the online retailer platform, consumers still have visibility to the brand-level banner that includes the unqualified certification claim so it would be reasonable for a consumer to presume the certification claim applies to all of the advertiser’s products, unless expressly stated to the contrary. One Council member stated, “Where [the claim] is in the carousel for that product, I don’t think anyone is paying attention to the ‘name’ on a product page, and the fact that [the certification] was on [this section] of their store, it would be reasonable for someone to think that all products under this banner would be verified.”
Council also challenged the advertiser’s evidentiary argument because according to the 10-point scale on the third-party organization’s website, any score other than zero is unverified by the organization and the alleged harmful ingredient was at a hazard score range of 3. By stating the product has no concerning ingredients according to the third-party organization, it expands the phrase and takes it out of context, misrepresenting the claim.
By taking all of the above into consideration, including the general impression conveyed by the advertisements, Council unanimously held that the advertisements contained inaccurate, deceptive or otherwise misleading claims which were not supported by competent and reliable evidence in contravention with Clause 1(a) and 1(e) of the Code.
Infraction:
Clause 1(a), Clause 1(e)
