Description:
Two (2) videos were posted to the influencer’s social media page. Each video displayed various products that consumers could purchase from the retailer, together with their applicable prices. Music played throughout the videos without verbal messaging. The static post that accompanied each video made reference to the retailer in the respective post’s write-up without tagging the retailer. The social media platform’s paid partnership tool was not used in either post.
Complaint:
The complainant alleged the posts were misleading because the material connection between the influencer and the retailer was not disclosed, suggesting the posts were organic.
Response:
In its response to Council, the parties advised that the paid partnership tool was inadvertently omitted between both the retailer and the influencer.
Decision:
Council appreciated the response from both the retailer and the influencer, and considered the complaint together with the parties’ submissions.
Council members were of the view that the posted advertisements should have made it clear that the influencer was acting on behalf of the retailer in the form of a paid partnership, which they did not. This omission, Council found, created a disguised endorsement.
Council unanimously held that the advertisements each omitted relevant information, resulting in a deceptive ad and bringing the respective endorsements into question, which violated Clause 1(b) and Clause 7 of the Code.
Infraction:
Clause 1(b), Clause 7
