Description:
A social media post presented a productivity application as a “hack” for corporate work. No reference to a material connection with the brand was disclosed.
Complaint:
The complainant alleged that the post did not include any disclosure indicating it was a paid advertisement or that the influencer was an ambassador of the brand, 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 product.
Response:
In its response to Council, the brand confirmed that there was a material connection between the brand and the influencer. The brand also confirmed that the account had been taken down. They confirmed they will ensure the relationship with this creator will be disclosed in future posts.
Decision:
Council appreciated the brand’s response. Council unanimously agreed that there was a violation of Clauses 1(b), 7 of the Code because the disclosure of a material connection with the brand was not included. Council also unanimously held that there was a violation of Clause 2 of the Code because the influencer attempted to make her posts about the productivity tool appear to be generic content that she was sharing.
Infraction:
Clause 1(b), Clause 2 and Clause 7
