Description:
In a video posted to his social media page, the influencer demonstrates the play features of one of the brand’s online games. The video features the influencer travelling to various locations and placing bets while at each location. There was no disclosure in the advertisement around the relationship between the influencer and the brand.
Complaint:
The complainant alleged that the video does not disclose that it is an advertisement or that there is a paid partnership between the influencer and the brand.
Response:
In its response to Council, the brand advised that the challenged video had been removed.
Decision:
Council appreciated the response from the brand and considered the complaint together with the brand’s submissions.
Council members were of the view that the video presented itself in a “day in the life of…” format as it took viewers through the various stops the influencer was making as he was playing the game, which conveyed the general impression that it was organic content.
For these reasons, Council unanimously held the video was a disguised advertisement that omitted relevant information resulting in a deceptive or misleading ad, which brought the legitimacy of the testimonial into question.
Infraction:
Clause 1(b), Clause 2, Clause 7
