Description:
The influencer posted a series of photos to their story on their social media platform promoting the services they obtained from a certain beauty salon.
No reference to #ad or a material connection with the brand was disclosed in the screenshots provided.
Complaint:
The complainant claimed there was a lack of disclosure in the ad which created a misleading impression that the influencer’s post was organic and that they were not being compensated by the brand for advertising their business.
Response:
In its response to Council, the brand confirmed that there was a material connection between the influencer and the brand in the form of complimentary services.
Decision:
Council appreciated the advertiser’s response, and considered the complaint together with the advertiser’s submission.
Council found that there was nothing presented in the series of photos on the influencer’s story suggesting it was an advertisement, and that there was a lack of disclosure around the material connection between the influencer and the brand given the complimentary service that was exchanged for their story.
As a result, Council determined the influencer’s views and opinions may not have been objective and as a result required the necessary disclosure identifying the material connection between the parties, which the influencer failed to do in this instance.
Council unanimously held that the advertisement contravened Clause 1(b) and Clause 2 of the Code, given the ad omitted relevant information and was presented in a format/style that concealed the fact it was an advertisement, bringing the authenticity of the testimonial into question. This also led to the determination of a finding of a contravention of Clause 7 of the Code, which provides that the testimonial reflects the genuine, reasonably current opinion of the individual making the representation based on their experience with the product.
Infraction:
Clause 1(b), Clause 2, Clause 7
