This summary provides a selection of the most interesting ASA adjudications in September, highlighting the key issues considered in those adjudications.  This month the ASA presented two interesting adjudications in relation to adverts containing price comparison claims involving well-known retailers ASDA, Argos and Specsavers.  Advertisers are reminded of the strict rules surrounding price comparisons.  Further guidance is also available in the BIS Pricing Practices Guide, which can be found on the BIS website here.

Other adjudications this month include adverts containing claims that a product is available at “from x” price, when it transpired that the product was not in fact available at that price.  Evidence that a similar product was available at a lower price than the one advertised was not sufficient to satisfy the ASA (see adjudications on Sixt Kenning Ltd and Prestons of Bolton).

A number of food and drink adjudications were also presented this month.

Click here to view the snapshot in full.

ADJUDICATIONS

FOOD & DRINK

  1. McDonald’s Restaurants Ltd, 12 September 2012 (A ruling on whether a fizzy fruit drink could constitute “1 of your 5-a-day”)
  2. ABF Grain Products Ltd t/a Allied Bakeries, 19 September 2012 (The ASA investigates various claims in relation to wholemeal bread)
  3. Heineken UK Ltd, 19 September 2012 (The ASA considers whether an advert for an alcohol product was irresponsible and encouraged alcohol consumption)
  4. Alpro (UK) Ltd, 26 September 2012 (An advert for almond milk is challenged as misleading for containing only 2% almond)
  5. Beverage Services Ltd, 26 September 2012 (An adjudication on whether an advert for Fanta encouraged excessive consumption and poor nutritional habits among children)
  6. Organic Trade Board, 26 September 2012 (Claims relating to the amount of pesticides used in organic farming are investigated)

HEALTH & BEAUTY

  1. Candy Harbour Ltd, 12 September 2012 (A magazine advert for a hair dye is challenged as misleading for implying the product was organic)
  2. Transform Medical Group (CS) Ltd, 19 September 2012 (A TV advert for cosmetic surgery is investigated after being broadcast during a programmed appealing to children)
  3. Prescriptions Logistics Ltd, 26 September 2012 (The ASA determines that a price comparison was misleading where there was a cheaper and more comparable product than the one featured on the website)

MOTORING

  1. General Motors UK Ltd t/a Vauxhall, 5 September 2012 (A car advert is challenged as encouraging dangerous and irresponsible driving)
  2. Sixt Kenning Ltd, 26 September 2012 (An internet banner advertising a car for hire at a certain price is found to be misleading)

RETAIL

  1. ASDA Stores Ltd, 5 September 2012 (An interesting adjudication on price comparison claims made in a TV advert)
  2. The-Sleeping-Giant, 5 September 2012 (The ASA investigates an advert for a product illegal to purchase in Wales)
  3. Prestons of Bolton, 12 September 2012 (An advert for diamond rings is held to be misleading as the rings were not available at the price quoted)

OTHER

  1. Universal Pictures International UK & Eire Ltd, 5 September 2012 (An advert for a film featuring a children’s toy holding a beer bottle is investigated)
  2. Magpas, 12 September 2012 (The ASA considers various claims made in relation to the availability of an air ambulance service)
  3. Bauer Consumer Media Ltd t/a More! Magazine, 19 September 2012 (A promotion for two similar competitions running simultaneously with different terms and conditions is held to be misleading)
  4. British Wind, 19 September 2012 (A number of claims featured in a promotion for wind energy are investigated for being misleading)