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.

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.

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.

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.

The advertiser did not publish a correction notice, and so the ad was reviewed by Council.

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.

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.

The Advertiser’s response included a statement that future offers would include material terms in closer proximity to provide clearer understanding for potential customers.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Since the vehicle was not available at the advertised price, the complainant also felt that this was a ‘bait and switch’.

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.

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.

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.

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.