
The Check Mark
Learn more about our updated Clearance Services Check Mark.
Recent Complaint Case Summaries
Overview
The following are case summaries of consumer complaints about advertising that were recently upheld by Standards Councils (Councils). Councils are composed of senior advertising industry and public representatives, who volunteer their time to adjudicate consumer complaints under the provisions of the Canadian Code of Advertising Standards (Code). The case summaries are divided into two sections.
Identified Cases
This section identifies the involved advertisers and provides details about consumers’ complaints regarding advertisements that were found by Council to contravene the Code. In this section, the advertising in question was not withdrawn or amended before Council met to deliberate on the complaint. Where provided, an “Advertiser’s Statement” is included in the case summary.
Non-Identified Cases
This section summarizes consumer complaints upheld by Council without identifying the advertiser or the advertisement. In these cases, the advertiser either withdrew, permanently retired, or appropriately amended the advertisement in question after being advised by Advertising Standards Canada that a complaint had been received, but before the matter was adjudicated by Council. As required by the Code, retail advertisers also ran timely corrective advertisements in consumer-oriented media that reached the same consumers to whom the original advertising was directed. For information about the Code and the Consumer Complaint Procedure, select the following links:
Identified Cases - January 1 to December 31, 2021
Clause 1: Accuracy and Clarity Clause 3: Price Claims |
|
Advertiser: | Bloomex Inc. |
Industry: | Retailer |
Region: | National |
Media: | Online Advertisement |
Complaint(s): | 1 |
Description: | The website advertisement promoted a carnation floral arrangement for a casket. The webpage contained an image of the arrangement and information about pricing and sizes. Directly beneath the image, the webpage stated “Compare at $119.00!” and next to the image, the prices were listed at $99.99 with a crossed out in red $149.99 price as well, and a statement that customers will save $50.00. The advertisement also included a 4.7/5 star rating “based on 1510 Customer Reviews”. |
Complaint: | The complainant alleged that the advertisement lacked clarity around information material to a purchasing decision, including the number of flowers compared to greenery each size contained, the confusion caused by the three different prices given, and the lack of further information available to support the star rating. The complainant further questioned whether this was perpetually on sale. |
Advertiser Response: | In its response to Council, the advertiser submitted that it compares its bouquets to the suggested price for its network of affiliated florists, and provided a link to another online flower arrangement retailer for reference. The advertiser also provided its review table for the product in question to support the star rating claim. |
Decision: | Council considered the advertisement together with the advertiser’s submissions under Clauses 1 and 3. Under Clause 3, the majority of Council found that, given the three different prices listed, there was a lack of clarity around the regular price of the product, in contravention of Clause 3(a). Providing both a “compare at” price and a comparison crossed-out price created confusion about whether the reference prices referred to the market in general, or to the advertiser’s own prices. Further, no evidence was provided to Council to substantiate actual sales made at any given price point, or when the arrangement was offered at the claimed ‘compare at’ or regular prices.
It was also not possible to determine whether the image shown reflected the advertised price, or if a consumer would need to pay more for the size of arrangement shown. For these reasons, Council was unanimous in its decision that the general impression conveyed by the advertisement was misleading, and that pertinent details were not clearly stated regarding the pricing and the customer ratings, in contravention of Clauses 1(a), 1(c), 3(a) and 3(b). |
Infraction: | Clause 1 (a) and (c), Clause 3 (a) and (b). |
Clause 1: Accuracy and Clarity Clause 11: Superstitions and Fears |
|
Advertiser: | John Adams & Friends |
Industry: | Non-commercial / Advocacy |
Region: | National |
Media: | Television |
Complaint(s): | 6 |
Description: | Two related advertisements asked that the border between the USA and Canada be opened ‘now’, and included the statements “Free Your Hostages” plus “saying the fully vaccinated can transmit Covid without showing us actual cases is not science or fact – it’s fear.” |
Complaint: | Use of hostage images and references, prominent use of the word “fear” and claims about governments keeping loved ones apart resulted in confusion and fear by viewers. The images together with the words used were an exploitation of fears and spread false information about the pandemic and vaccines. Although not stated in the advertisement, one complainant believed that the advertisement conveyed the impression that the pandemic was false and that the vaccines did not work. |
Advertiser Response: | There was no response from the advertiser. |
Decision: | Council members reviewed the advertising submitted and the complaints. Council members also reviewed Interpretation Guideline #6 with respect to advocacy advertising, and the need for such messages to remain truthful, fair and accurate.
Council members unanimously agreed that the general impression conveyed by the advertisement was inaccurate, deceptive and misleading, with its use of both statements and illustrations. Equating Canadians as hostages created a false general impression about the nature of the imposed restrictions. Further, no provincial premiere has control over border openings or closings as inferred by the ad. The inaccuracy and images misled Canadians about the overall effectiveness of the vaccines as well as the travel restrictions put into place to minimize the spread of COVID-19 during a pandemic event. Members unanimously agreed that this advertisement was also in violation of Clause 11 in that its exaggeration and misinformation played upon fears to mislead Canadians. |
Infraction: | Clause 1 (a) and Clause 11. |
Clause 1: Accuracy and Clarity Clause 8: Professional or Scientific Claims Clause 11: Superstitions and Fears |
|
Advertiser: | Dr. Squatch, Inc. |
Industry: | E-commerce |
Region: | National |
Media: | Social Media (YouTube) |
Complaint(s): | 2 |
Description: | In two YouTube advertisements promoting the sale of soap to men, the advertiser claimed that “big soap” (i.e. other commercial brands) included harmful synthetic chemicals that are linked to “depression, liver damage, cancer, low sperm count and dry skin”, implying that using this company’s soaps will keep men from facing these severe health conditions. In addition, the advertiser claimed that its soaps were “all natural” and “healthier”. |
Complaint: | The complainants alleged that the advertising was false, misleading and played on viewers’ fears to mislead about the risks associated with using commercial brands’ soaps. The complainants further stated that these claims were scientific in nature, but were not backed up with any references that were relevant to the Canadian marketplace. |
Advertiser Response: | The advertiser submitted that all claims made in its advertising were ‘supported by peer-reviewed, scientific study,” and provided Council with several studies from a large number of sources, primarily from the United States and the European Union. Two references were made to guidelines from Health Canada about the maximum quantity of certain chemicals permitted in cosmetics. Reference was also made to a definition of “brand bars and body washes” which were classified as “synthetic detergent” by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The advertiser further stated that its product is classified as an actual soap by the FDA, not a detergent contrary to many other commercial soaps. The advertiser further submitted that the Code does not prevent advertising from including substantiated claims even if they contrast with government’s position, i.e. Health Canada’s position. |
Decision: | Council members carefully analyzed the advertisements and the response received. All recognized the relative humour in the ads. However, Council reaffirmed that the onus is on the advertiser to provide competent and reliable evidence to support its claims. Council unanimously agreed that none of the studies provided were sufficiently robust to support the severe health condition claims alleged in the advertisements. Indeed, some of the studies appeared to be still ongoing or were deemed inconclusive and were not relevant to the Canadian market.
Council members discussed the safety requirements of Health Canada, which limit the amount of any potentially harmful cosmetic ingredient (the so-called ‘Ingredient Hotlist’). On this basis, Council found that some of the advertiser’s claims were misleading since all soaps in Canada must comply with these limits. Council members also discussed the statements made by the advertiser that “the majority of” or “most other” soaps contain chemicals that will damage men’s health; but determined that neither were scientifically justified nor supported as required under the Code. For these reasons, Council members were unanimous in their decision that the advertising included unsubstantiated and inaccurate claims in violation of Clauses 1(a), 1(e), and also played upon consumer fears, by over-stating risks associated with the use of commercial soaps, to mislead consumers in contravention of Clause 11 of the Code. A majority of Council members agreed that given that the health claims implied that they had a scientific basis they did not truly possess, the advertising was also in violation of Clause 8 of the Code. |
Infraction: | Clause 1(a), Clause 1(e), Clause 8 and Clause 11. |
Advertiser's Verbatim Statement: | Dr. Squatch respectfully disagrees with the conclusion reached in the Decision at issue for the reasons cited in its response and reserves all rights to make advertising claims in the future that are supported by competent and reliable evidence in Canada. However, Dr. Squatch has voluntarily amended the advertisements at issue to address the Decision. |
Clause 1: Accuracy and Clarity Clause 10: Safety Clause 11: Superstitions and Fears |
|
Advertiser: | Vaccine Choice Canada |
Industry: | Non-commercial – Advocacy |
Region: | National |
Media: | Out-of-Home – Billboard, Poster |
Complaint(s): | 10+ |
Description: | Billboard advertising showed the image of two very young children together with reference to COVID-19 vaccination with added wording “Know the Dangers” on one side plus, on the other side, “Masks, Distancing, Lockdowns … Are They Working?” |
Complaint: | Complainants expressed deep concern about the promotion of mis-information that could lead to adverse health outcomes, especially because they included pictures of young children who were not eligible for vaccines at the time the complaints were received, together with prominent use of the word “Dangers”. |
Advertiser Response: | The advertiser did not respond to the enquiries by Ad Standards. |
Decision: | Council members considered the use of images of young children, perceived to heighten emotional engagement, especially in such close association to the words “Know the Dangers.” Notably, this ad was displayed prior to children being eligible to receive any COVID-19 vaccine.
Without a response from the advertiser, Council members were left to interpret the advertiser’s intended message, and were presented with no support for the implied claim that there were ‘dangers’ relevant to children associated with the vaccines. In Council’s view, the use of the imagery of children and the reference to dangers, misleads the public about risks of demonstrable harm related to COVID-19 vaccination for children that are not substantiated. Council members determined that different wording, such as “understand the information”, might have resulted in a different finding in this case. Additionally, in isolation, the right side of the billboard which asks “Are They Working?” about masks and lockdowns, is likely not a violation of the Code. However, the ad must be evaluated as a whole. The effect of putting the messages side by side means that two children appear in the ad at a time when no vaccinations were available for children. Council members unanimously determined that the advertisement was in violation of Clause 11 of the Code since it plays upon fears to mislead consumers. The majority of members also determined that the advertisement was in violation of Clauses 1 (a) and (e) since the advertisement made inaccurate and otherwise misleading claims, and no evidence was made available to Ad Standards. In addition, the majority of members determined that the advertisement displayed a disregard for safety by encouraging unsafe or dangerous practices through discouraging vaccinations, recognized as an important and necessary pandemic public health measure, in violation of Clause 10. |
Infraction: | Clause 1(a), Clause 1(e), Clause 10 and Clause 11. |
Clause 2: Disguised Advertising Techniques Clause 7: Testimonials |
|
Advertiser: | Influencer Marketing – The Perfect Hoop + Madison K |
Industry: | Jewellery |
Region: | National |
Media: | Social Media (Instagram) |
Complaint(s): | 1 |
Description: | Three posts by the Canadian influencer “Madison K” showed The Perfect Hoop jewellery but were not identified as advertisements. One of the posts referred to the jewellery having been gifted to her by the advertiser. She tagged the advertiser but did not indicate the posts were sponsored content. Another social media post was made by the Canadian-based advertiser The Perfect Hoop using the same photo of the influencer as she had already posted on Instagram, also without any reference to there being any material connection between the two. |
Complaint: | Complainant alleged that by not revealing that there was a material connection between the advertiser and the influencer, consumers were misled and unable to assess the posts as advertisements. |
Advertiser Response: | The advertiser declined to respond, other than to state their belief that these were not advertisements and that the complainant had not contacted them about the posts. |
Decision: | Council reviewed the posts by both the advertiser and the influencer, in light of the Code, as well as Interpretation Guideline #5 – Testimonials, Endorsements, Reviews and the Influencer Disclosure Guidelines published by Ad Standards. Council also considered the definition of advertising under the Code, namely that it is “any message… controlled directly or indirectly by the advertiser with an intent to influence consumer’s choice, opinion or behaviour.”
Council also considered the differences between the posts by the advertiser and by the influencer. Unfortunately, the advertiser did not provide sufficient information for Council to determine the relationship between the brand and the influencer. Since the advertiser used the influencer’s picture, Council had no option but to infer that there was an agreement or relationship between them. Unfortunately, there is no information about whether that agreement incorporated directions to the influencer about proper disclosure of a material connection in her posts. Following considerable discussion by Council members, it was unanimously determined that the influencer was in violation of Clauses 2 and 7 of the Code. Where there is a material connection, both the advertiser and influencer are responsible for ensuring that the appropriate disclosures are included to identify her posts as advertisements. |
Infraction: | Clause 2 and Clause 7 |
Clause 14: Unacceptable Depictions and Portrayals | |
Advertiser: | Econick Excavating Limited |
Industry: | House Maintenance Services |
Region: | Nova Scotia |
Media: | Company Vehicle |
Complaint(s): | 1 |
Description: | A logo advertisement on company vehicle stated “We run hoes for money.” |
Complaint: | The complainant believed that the statement was used as a double-entendre referencing the term “hoes” in a demeaning and unacceptable manner, alluding to potential sexual exploitation or trafficking women. |
Advertiser Response: | Although Ad Standards requested a response from the advertiser, there was no response sent to the Council. |
Decision: | Council members discussed the use and meanings of the term “hoes”, and the phrase “running hoes” in this context. Some Council members found the term to be offensive; while some thought it possible that the business owner may have found the phrase was funny. Council agreed that even if humour was intended, the ad was not justified under Interpretation Guideline #1. All Council members determined that this statement exhibited on the outside of the advertiser’s vehicle displays an obvious indifference to conduct or attitudes that offend the standards of pubic decency prevailing among a significant segment of the population.
Council members were unanimous in their decision that this advertising was in violation of Clause 14(d) of the Code. |
Infraction: | Clause 14(d). |
Non-Identified Cases - January 1 to December 31, 2021
Clause 1: Accuracy and Clarity | |
Advertiser: | House maintenance |
Industry: | House maintenance service |
Region: | National |
Media: | Television |
Complaint(s): | 1 |
Description: | The advertiser’s commercial promoted its services for exterior home maintenance and made claims that after using its products and services for a specific part of a house, consumers would “never” need to do their own maintenance on that part of the house again. |
Complaint: | The complainant alleged that the television commercial was misleading because further maintenance would be required after using the advertiser’s products and services. |
Advertiser Response: | In its response to Council, the advertiser submitted that it provides its customers with a warranty with a 100% guarantee on the efficacy of its product. The warranty further provides that if the product fails to perform a specific function, the advertiser will service and /or repair the problem or provide a full refund for its products. Practically, this means that consumers would not need to do any maintenance. |
Decision: | Council considered the complaint and the advertiser’s submissions and appreciated the information provided by the advertiser.
According to the majority of Council members, the general impression conveyed by the advertisement was that, after using the advertiser’s services and products, consumers would not need to do any further maintenance on their houses. However, these members of Council questioned the accuracy of the claim, as there may be some instances where maintenance would be required by the consumer. While the inner workings of the advertiser’s product were covered by the warranty, the product could become obstructed, blocked, or rendered ineffective without maintenance to prevent objects from building up on its surface. Without this qualification, the absolute claim of “never” was misleading and relevant information was omitted from the advertisement. For these reasons, the majority of Council determined the general impression of the advertisement to be misleading, in violation of Clauses 1 (a) and (b). A minority of Council members found that the claims made in the advertisement should be covered within the scope of the warranty, and that concerns about warranty coverage were not part of the advertisement. However, that was not the prevailing view of Council. |
Infraction: | Clause 1 (a) and (b). |
Clause 1: Accuracy and Clarity | |
Advertiser: | Non-profit Organization |
Industry: | Non-commercial – Advocacy |
Region: | National |
Media: | Television |
Complaint(s): | 1 |
Description: | Advertisement claimed that Canada’s performance in vaccination roll-out was poor compared to other countries. |
Complaint: | Complainant alleged that the advertisement was insulting to Canadians, and made a claim that was not supported and promoted misinformation. |
Advertiser Response: | The advertiser stated that its goal for this commercial was to criticize a ‘state of affairs’ about distribution of COVID-19 vaccines which, in its determination, was poor federal government performance when compared to other countries. |
Decision: | Although Council appreciated the response received, they were disappointed that the advertiser had not offered any competent and timely evidence and/or data to support its claim about government performance, and comparison to other countries’ roll-out, at the time the advertisement was seen. Council members noted that advertised claims must be supported and supportable for the duration of the ad’s time in market. If any claims are no longer true, an advertisement is to be amended or withdrawn.
Although not a majority decision, some Council members believed that this advertisement was in violation of Clause 14(c) [Unacceptable Depictions and Portrayals] since it appeared as a general impression, in both tone and content, to disparage Canadians. However, this was not the prevailing view of Council. Council was unanimous in its decision that this advertisement was in violation of Clause 1(a) and Clause 1(e) of the Code. |
Infraction: | Clause 1 (a) and (e). |
Clause 1: Accuracy and Clarity | |
Advertiser: | Retailer |
Industry: | Alcoholic Beverages |
Region: | Ontario |
Media: | Out-of-Home (Billboard) |
Complaint(s): | 1 |
Description: | A billboard advertisement promoted retailer’s activity to help the environment. |
Complaint: | The complainant saw an asterisk within the very large print at the top of the billboard, but struggled to read the fine print at the bottom of the advertisement, leading to confusion about what the advertiser was actually doing to help the environment. |
Advertiser Response: | The advertiser acknowledged that there may have been an inadvertent printing error for the billboard, and thanked the complainant and Ad Standards for pointing it out. The advertiser indicated that it would verify font sizes for disclaimers in future. |
Decision: | Council members reviewed the advertising submitted and agreed unanimously that the font size for the disclaimer language was much too small, and impossible to read unless one stood immediately in front of the billboard.
Although not a majority, some Council members commented that the fine print was placed too far away from the main message to be relevant and clear, and others raised concern about the faint colour of the fine print on the background, which added to the lack of legibility. |
Infraction: | Clause 1(d). |
Clause 1: Accuracy and Clarity | |
Advertiser: | Retailer |
Industry: | Department Store |
Region: | Regional |
Media: | Digital |
Complaint(s): | 1 |
Description: | Email promoted a sale with “up to 60% off the original price” on certain items, including as-is and scratched/dented merchandise, and a clickable banner immediately below the offer saying ”Shop Now”. |
Complaint: | The complainant thought that the “Shop Now” banner was connected to the 60% off offer. When complainant clicked on “Shop Now”, the offers presented did not match the email. |
Advertiser Response: | The advertiser explained that the 60% off offers were available at in-store events only. According to the Advertiser, the “Shop Now” button was printed in a different colour from that used to announce the other discounts. The advertiser further advised that it believed that most Canadians understood the distinction between their regular in-store event and the online offer. |
Decision: | Council members reviewed the advertising submitted and the complaint, together with the advertiser’s response. Council members appreciated that the colour of the ‘shop now’ banner was different from the rest of the initial banner media immediately above. However, they also noted that there was a discounted amount written in the same colour within the banner area above, and further, that there was no space between the two types of sales being promoted.
In the view of Council, the banner stating “shop now” was clearly attached to the special discount offers. There was no space between them. In contrast, there was white space between “shop now” and other online offers. This created a misleading impression that the discounts of up to 60% off were available online. Council members were unanimous in their decision that this advertisement was in violation of Clause 1(b) of the Code in that it omitted relevant information that resulted in confusion and misleading consumers. The majority of Council members also stated that the advertisement was in violation of Clause 1(a) and Clause 1(b) of the Code since they contained misleading illustrations and that pertinent details were not clearly and understandably stated. |
Infraction: | Clause 1 (a), (b) and (c). |
Clause 1: Accuracy and Clarity | |
Advertiser: | Retailer |
Industry: | E-commerce |
Region: | National |
Media: | Digital |
Complaint(s): | 1 |
Description: | Retailer’s advertisement for a number of items included what appeared to be a prohibited item available for purchase, although at a much lower price than might normally be expected for such an item. |
Complaint: | Complainant alleged that the advertisement promoted the sale of an item that is prohibited for sale in Canada. |
Advertiser Response: | Advertiser, a platform allowing others to post items for sale, advised Ad Standards that the item identified by the complainant was misidentified. The item for sale was actually a small desk item that carried an image of an item that was prohibited for sale in Canada. Although it appeared to have been a misunderstanding, the advertiser removed the item from Canadian media.
The advertiser did not publish a correction notice, and so the ad was reviewed by Council. |
Decision: | Council thanked the advertiser for its explanatory response. Council members reviewed the advertising and the media in which it had been made available. Because no information was included to describe the item being promoted, and the image was ambiguous, the advertisement was considered to be inaccurate and lacked clarity. Council also considered that consumers could not seek further information without downloading the retailer’s app. In other words, a number of other steps were required to learn exactly what was for sale.
Following discussion, Council members unanimously agreed that this advertisement falsely appeared to promote a prohibited item and was therefore, inaccurate, deceptive or otherwise misleading in its general impression to the public. The majority of Council members also agreed that this advertisement omitted relevant information which resulted in the advertisement being deceptive or misleading. A minority of Council members believed that pertinent details of the advertisement were not clearly and understandably stated. However, this was not the prevailing view of Council. |
Infraction: | Clause 1 (a) and (b). |
Clause 1: Accuracy and Clarity | |
Advertiser: | Retailer |
Industry: | Telecommunications |
Region: | National |
Media: | Digital (Owned Website) |
Complaint(s): | 1 |
Description: | The website advertisement promoted a telecommunication plan with the option of sharing data. |
Complaint: | The complainant understood the advertisement offered the option of sharing data for the advertised set price. However, upon signing in to accept the promotional offer, the complainant discovered at final check-out that the advertised offer was per phone line with the requirement of having a minimum of two phone lines, in effect doubling the cost quoted in the advertisement. |
Advertiser Response: | In its response to Council, the advertiser clarified that details of all types of plans offered were available on the website by clicking through within the labelled tabs. The advertiser also noted that on the initial landing page of the advertisement, it was clearly stated that all users had to be members of the advertised plan in order to share data. |
Decision: | Council thanked the advertiser for its response, which assisted in the review. Council members reviewed the advertising submitted by each of the complainant and the advertiser, and recognized that some relevant information was missing from the initial offer screens, especially since even Council members who examined the representations carefully were unsure of the actual terms of the offer. Further, in Council’s view, consumers should have been alerted up front, and before starting the purchase process, that the promotional offer was per phone line. This material fact should be included in the ad for the offer.
Following a review of all elements of the advertisement in association with Clauses 1(a), 1(b) and 1(c) of the Code, Council members were unanimous in their decision that this advertisement was in violation of Clause 1(b), since relevant information material to consumers’ purchase decision making was missing in the original advertisement. A majority of Council members also determined that the advertisement was in violation of Clause 1(a) since the offer was unclear about the type of plans, the cost of the offer, and who was eligible to participate in the offer made, rendering it misleading. |
Infraction: | Clause 1 (a) and (b). |
Clause 1: Accuracy and Clarity Clause 3: Price Claims |
|
Advertiser: | Automotive Manufacturer |
Industry: | Automotive |
Region: | National |
Media: | Social Media (Facebook) |
Complaint(s): | 1 |
Description: | Advertisement promoted an offer for one of their models during a special sales event, with a link to the Canadian home page to obtain details. The advertisement stated that the offer was “just $xxx a month for 48 months” to own a specific vehicle. |
Complaint: | Complainant alleged that retailer’s advertisement did not clearly provide important details about the offer or the vehicle in close proximity to the offer. It forced potential buyers to check out a website to learn what the offer was about, and then discover relevant terms and conditions. Complainant took the extra steps and was disappointed to subsequently realize that the vehicle promoted was a past year’s model, that the offer was for a lease arrangement and not a purchase, and that a relatively large down payment was required, plus added fees, before the advertised offer could be considered valid. |
Advertiser Response: | Advertiser confirmed their offer, and advised that all offer details were included on the advertiser’s website. They acknowledged that relevant disclaimers and details were not included with or in close proximity to the social media post during the campaign offer. They acknowledged that the wording in their advertisement did not include language inferring that the quoted amount was contingent on meeting other qualifications or that the posted offer was for a lease, not a purchase.
The Advertiser’s response included a statement that future offers would include material terms in closer proximity to provide clearer understanding for potential customers. |
Decision: | Council thanked the advertiser for its response and understanding of the need to provide material information in all advertising. Council members discussed the accuracy of the social media post and whether it fairly represented the offer to potential customers. Although not all information can be included in a social post, material conditions should be included before a consumer has to click through. Of particular concern were (i) the lack of language indicating that other conditions applied to take advantage of the quoted pricing, (ii) the model year of vehicle, and (iii) the omission of the word “lease” anywhere in the advertisement, when the word “own” used elsewhere in the advertisement created the false general impression the offer was for a purchase of the vehicle.
A majority of Council members found the advertisement to be in contravention of Clauses 1(a), 1 (c) and 3(a) of the Code. Although not a majority, several Council members also found the advertisement to be in contravention of Clause 1(b) since relevant information was omitted. |
Infraction: | Clause 1 (a), (c) and Clause 3(a). |
Clause 1: Accuracy and Clarity Clause 3: Price Claims |
|
Advertiser: | Retailer |
Industry: | Retail |
Region: | National |
Media: | Flyer and Website |
Complaint(s): | 1 |
Description: | During a 3-day online-only promotion, a flyer advertisement promoted an early-bird opportunity for consumers to order a product at a specified price. |
Complaint: | The complainant alleged that the advertisement was inaccurate because when the complainant went online to order the product, the price displayed on the advertiser’s website was more than the price advertised in their flyer. |
Advertiser Response: | In its response to Council, the advertiser submitted that there was a technical glitch at the start of the promotion resulting in the sale price of the product not being updated on the advertiser’s website; adding however, that the issue was quickly resolved and the website was corrected to offer the price as advertised in the flyer. |
Decision: | Council appreciated the advertiser’s response.
Council was unanimous in its finding that the advertisement contained an inaccurate representation resulting in a deceptive price claim given the discrepancy between the price advertised in the flyer compared to the price for the product on the advertiser’s website. Council also determined that while promptly updating the correct sale price for the product on the advertiser’s website was important, it did not constitute a corrective notice that would bring the error to the attention of consumers. It was Council’s unanimous decision that the advertisement was in contravention of Clause 1 (a) and Clause 3 (a) of the Code. |
Infraction: | Clause 1(a) and 3(a). |
Clause 1: Accuracy and Clarity Clause 3: Price Claims |
|
Advertiser: | Retailer |
Industry: | Retail (Dept. store) |
Region: | National |
Media: | Digital (Display ad) |
Complaint(s): | 1 |
Description: | An animated digital advertisement on a third party’s website promoted the advertiser’s product at a discounted price. The link led to the advertiser’s own website where the same product was listed at a higher price. |
Complaint: | The complainant was disappointed that the price on the advertiser’s website was almost twice as much as the price listed in the advertisement on the third party’s website. |
Advertiser Response: | In its response to Council, the advertiser stated that there had been a technical problem in the pricing feeds used to advertise the item. The advertiser then blocked the item from any further digital ads to correct the error. The advertiser stated that they were unable to post a correction notice since they did not control the targeted audience from the third party’s site. |
Decision: | Council considered the options available to the advertiser, including posting a corrective notice on its own website, if posting a corrective notice through the third party was not possible. Ad Standards was unable to resolve the matter administratively since no correction notice was posted.
Council appreciated receipt of the response and explanation from the advertiser, which assisted in its review. The fact that the advertiser offered a gift card to this affected consumer was not relevant to Council’s adjudication under the Code. Following a review of all elements of the advertisement and the response from the advertiser in association with Clauses 1 [Accuracy and Clarity] and 3 [Price Claims], Council members were unanimous in their decision that this was a violation of Clause 1(a) in that advertisements must not contain inaccurate, deceptive or otherwise misleading claims, statements, illustrations or representations. The majority of members were also in agreement that this was a violation of Clause 3(a) providing that no advertisements shall include deceptive price claims or discounts. |
Infraction: | Clause 1(a) and 3(a). |
Clause 1: Accuracy and Clarity Clause 8: Professional or Scientific Claims |
|
Advertiser: | Not-For-Profit |
Industry: | Non-Commercial (Advocacy) |
Region: | Alberta |
Media: | Out-of-Home Billboard |
Complaint(s): | 1 |
Description: | Through words and images in an out-of-home billboard advertisement, the advertiser encouraged viewers to question the causes of climate change. |
Complaint: | The complainant alleged that the advertisement was not a fair representation of the complexity of the issue of global warming, or the science surrounding it. The complainant purported that the advertisement made inaccurate representations by visually overemphasizing natural factors, and by directing viewers to question if carbon emissions are the primary reason for climate change. |
Advertiser Response: | In its response to Council, the advertiser submitted that the purpose of the advertisement was to stimulate the public’s interest on the topic of global warming and to generate discussion about it. The advertiser highlighted that the advertisement invited engagement and critical thinking.
The advertiser agreed with the complainant that the advertisement was not a fair representation of the complexity of the issue because of the limitations of the medium, but did not violate the Code. The advertiser submitted that despite controversy and public misconception, the warming effect of CO2 on the climate is much less than previously thought and that other drivers are more influential. The advertiser referred to various sources in an effort to support its position in that regard. |
Decision: | Council appreciated the advertiser’s response and evidence, and considered the complaint together with the advertiser’s submissions.
The majority of Council members concluded that the general impression conveyed by the advertisement was misleading. Council agreed with the advertiser that climate science is complex and that diverse opinions can be beneficial to scientific debate. Council found, however, that the general impression created by the question posed in the advertisement and accompanying images, discounted prevailing scientific knowledge. In reviewing the evidence submitted by the advertiser, Council determined that it was not sufficient to support the general impression of the advertisement. Majority of Council members agreed that, in some cases, the limited media allowed for simplified imagery without violating the Code. That said, in Council’s view, the resulting image could inform the general impression of the advertisement and that this impression was not corrected by a disclaimer about the images in the advertisement not being to scale. While the intention of the advertisement may have been to question causes of global warming and generate discussion for debate on the cause of climate change, in Council’s view the effect was to create a misleading general impression that was not supported by competent and reliable evidence. Council determined that the advertisement was in contravention of Clause 1 (a), Clause 1 (e), and Clause 8 of the Code. |
Infraction: | Clause 1 (a), (e) and Clause 8. |
Clause 1: Accuracy and Clarity Clause 3: Price Claims Clause 4: Bait and Switch |
|
Advertiser: | Retailer |
Industry: | Automotive - General |
Region: | National |
Media: | Website |
Complaint(s): | 1 |
Description: | An automotive retailer advertised a vehicle for sale on its website for a specific price, with no other visible caveats, disclaimers and/or terms and conditions associated with the advertisement. |
Complaint: | The complainant alleged that the advertisement was deceptive because there was a vehicle trade-in requirement as a condition of the offer that was not disclosed in the advertisement. Therefore, when the complainant went to purchase the vehicle, the price was more than the price that was advertised on the advertiser’s website.
Since the vehicle was not available at the advertised price, the complainant also felt that this was a ‘bait and switch’. |
Advertiser Response: | In its response to Council, the advertiser submitted that their promotion had been removed from their website. |
Decision: | Council appreciated the advertiser’s response.
Council found that there were no qualifying conditions disclosed in the advertised promotional offer. The advertisement therefore omitted information relevant to the offer that may affect a consumer’s actions. Furthermore, Council found the advertisement contained a deceptive price claim by misrepresenting the price at which consumers could purchase the vehicle, unconditionally. The omission of reference to the trade-in, and resulting price representation, also met the conditions of ‘bait and switch’ under the Code, since the advertised vehicle was not available for purchase at the price advertised. Council also determined that while the advertisement was removed when the error was realized, it did not constitute a corrective notice that would bring the error to the attention of consumers. It was Council’s unanimous decision that the advertisement was in contravention of Clause 1 (a), Clause 1 (b), Clause 3 (a), and Clause 4 of the Code. |
Infraction: | Clause 1(a) and (b), Clause 3(a), and Clause 4. |
Clause 2: Disguised Advertising Techniques Clause 7: Testimonials |
|
Advertiser: | Influencer Marketing |
Industry: | Food Products |
Region: | National |
Media: | Social Media |
Complaint(s): | 1 |
Description: | Influencer promoted a new food product that had been received by her for trial or testing. |
Complaint: | Complainant was concerned that none of the promotional posts revealed the nature of any relationship between the advertiser and the influencer, which resulted in complainant not knowing if the posts reflected the influencer’s own organic review or if the advertiser paid for the posts. |
Advertiser Response: | Advertiser stated there was no paid consideration for the posts by the influencer, although they had sent the product to her as a gift. Advertiser subsequently worked with the influencer to have the posts amended to identify that the samples sent were free, and also to include references that these were each a “#Sponsored #Ad” in close proximity to the endorsement, i.e. in the main caption of each post, as set out in the Disclosure Influencer Guidelines published by Ad Standards.
Advertiser further advised, on behalf of the influencer and itself, that the originally posted video could not be amended nor referenced with any notice or disclaimer for consumers since it was permanently removed within 24 hours of its original posting. |
Decision: | Council very much appreciated the full response from the advertiser. The subsequent amendments to the post disclosed the material connection between the influencer and the advertiser, and the amended ad therefore complied with the Code.
Following a review of the original posting by the influencer, before amendments, Council was unanimous in its decision that it was in violation of Clauses 2 and 7 of the Canadian Code of Advertising Standards. Council also was unanimous in its thanks for the advertiser and the influencer working to ensure that this error was corrected for subsequent posts. |
Infraction: | Clause 2 and Clause 7. |
Clause 5: Guarantees | |
Advertiser: | Retailer |
Industry: | Department Store (Other) |
Region: | National |
Media: | Digital (Owned website) |
Complaint(s): | 1 |
Description: | Retailer’s website stated that a qualifying competitor’s online regular or promotional price will be matched for any item that the advertiser had in stock, provided it is the identical item. |
Complaint: | When complainant submitted a claim for price match as outlined on the website, complainant was advised that the competitor was not a “qualifying competitor”. |
Advertiser Response: | Although recognizing that their website did not explain what is accepted as a ‘qualifying competitor’, the advertiser reiterated that the competitive price claimed was not from a qualifying competitor. The advertiser referenced the limitations of “subject to terms and conditions” included in the advertised price match. |
Decision: | Council members reviewed the advertising submitted together with the response from the advertiser. Council members noted that the definitive language of a “guarantee” was attached to this price match. Yet, the terms were neither current nor clear for consumers to understand fully what is being offered. Council appreciated that the advertiser used the opportunity to review and update its website and its policy for price-matching offers. For the purposes of this complaint, Council considered only the original representations.
The majority of Council members found the price match offer was in violation of Clause 5 of the Code as conditions and exclusions were not fully explained, either online or by the customer service representative with whom the complainant spoke. Although not a majority, some Council members believed that the offer was also in violation of Clause 1(b) and 1(c) since the promotion of the offer omitted relevant information or was not clearly stated, leading to confusion by consumers. |
Infraction: | Clause 5. |