This month the ASA has provided a reminder that (i) encouraging excessive drinking is no laughing matter; (ii) number 1 claims must be adequately substantiated and (iii) all material information needs to be up front.

Anti-social ads: TikTok trends are no laughing matter

What was complained about? The ASA examined two comedic ads. One TikTok ad featuring a new video trend on the Las Iguana's account showed someone with a glass in their hand, falling over and spilling their drink. As they lay on the floor, they said ''for £32.95 you too can leave bottomless brunch like this''. The second was a YouTube ad for Air Up, showing a man peeing in a fountain, while a woman walked past carrying a child and another man shovelled snow. A voice-over said ''we solved daily hydration for this guy, the side effects, less sugary drinks, a healthier lifestyle, and well, this, we couldn’t solve this, but he’ll take care of that…". Complainants challenged whether the ads condoned anti-social and irresponsible behaviour, in this case, 1) excessive drinking and 2) public urination. 

What was the ruling? Upheld. The CAP code reviewed both ads and ruled that ads must uphold social responsibility standards and should avoid content that could potentially influence people to behave anti-socially. The ASA acknowledged that both Las Iguanas and Air Up's content were intended to be funny and creative but still found that the ads depicted irresponsible behaviour.

What are the ramifications? With the rise of social media trends, advertisers often try to use humorous and themed content to draw the attention of viewers. These strategies can be effective in engaging audiences and creating memorable brand impressions, but businesses must remain cautious about the messages their ads convey. The ruling serves as a reminder to advertisers that amusing content for the purpose of marketing must still be prepared with a sense of responsibility to consumers and to society. They should ensure that their content does not cross the line into promoting negative behaviours. The potential for widespread impact is significant and advertisers must evaluate whether their comedic content aligns with societal norms and values. 

Anyone getting a starter? Harvester promos and material information

What was complained about? A website for Harvester Restaurants featured promotion of a loyalty app stating “FLAVOUR REWARDS 25% OFF FOOD WHEN YOU SIGN UP TO THE HARVESTER APP AND JOIN THE FLAVOUR FAN CLUB”. Once users downloaded the app, a voucher was made available which stated “…sign up to our Harvester App to become a Flavour Fan Club member and receive 25% off mains on your next visit”. The complainant challenged whether the claim “25% OFF FOOD” was misleading.

What was the ruling? Upheld. The ASA considered that consumers would understand the offer “25% OFF FOOD” to apply to all food. This impression would be reinforced by the claim “Enjoy all your favourites for less” and by the absence of information in the ad regarding qualifications to the offer. The terms and conditions that detailed the qualification but these were only made available after the app had been downloaded. This qualification was significant, information and should have been made clear to consumers prior to downloading the app. Accordingly, the ad was misleading as it omitted material information. 

What are the ramifications? Caveats to offers must be clearly stated in the ad, and this cannot be compensated for by later inclusion of more detail in separate t&cs. Advertisers must carefully consider what information needs to be up front for customers to fully understand the offer, and what can be given at a later point. 

The fight for the number 1 laser – ASA’s Ruling on Lyma Life Ltd

What was complained about? The ASA investigated a paid-for Instagram ad for LYMA Laser, a home beauty device. The ad was headlined “Ok wasting your money on LED masks? Then the LYMA Laser is probably not for you”. It claimed that the product was the “world’s most powerful home beauty device”; “100x more effective than LED masks”; and “100x more powerful than LED”. The complainant challenged whether these claims were misleading and could be substantiated.

What was the ruling? Upheld. The ASA concluded that consumers would interpret the claims as confirmation that the LYMA Laser was the strongest and most effective device of all home beauty devices and as such was a comparative claim. However, studies to support the claims were not conducted on people and so were insufficient to substantiate the efficacy of the device. The ad was found to be misleading, and the comparative claims could not be substantiated. 

What are the ramifications? The ruling highlights the importance of objectivity in comparative advertising. Advertisers looking to make comparative statements should ensure that they hold robust substantiation for their claims. As is often emphasised by the ASA when it comes to health-related products, advertisers should consider the quality of evidence available and ensure that they support any claims that appear in the ads.