A PRODUCT WHICH was advertised as “Irish made” but shipped from China was among 15 adverts found to be in breach of standards in the latest complaints bulletin.
The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) today released its latest complaints bulletin and its Independent Complaints Council upheld 15 cases in full.
Two complaints against Glaze Aura were upheld, one of which revolved around a product marketed as “Irish made” but shipped from China.
Glaze Aura said the reference to the product being “Irish-made” was included in error during the early stages of setting up its product page.
The company added that it had only been online for a short period and was removed as soon as they realised it could be misleading.
It confirmed that the product was not manufactured in Ireland and that there is now no wording on its website that suggested it was.
Glaze Aura told the ASA that it has “apologised sincerely for the mistake and for any confusion caused”.
TonyBet
A complaint was also upheld against TonyBet about a YouTube advert which depicted a man using his phone while sitting on the toilet.
The advertisement included the wording: “Only 3% of people can do this. Make money while sitting on the toilet.”
A complainant considered the advertisement claimed that gambling was “easy” and that it was “playing down the dangers of gambling”.
TonyBet said it took “immediate action” after reviewing the complaint and that it “urgently discontinued non-compliant advertisements with immediate effect”.
TonyBet told the ASA that it is “committed to being compliant with industry advertising standards” and that the advert in question was “handled by a mobile affiliation partner”.
“The partner expanded their team and due to human error, one of the new employees did not check the created advertising templates against the guidelines before uploading them for distribution,” said TonyBet.
TonyBet added that the partner “did not warn them that the advertising material would be launched for YouTube and due to high workload, the Tonybet Marketing team missed the material in question”.
The company said an “additional training session had been organised with relevant stakeholders as a matter of reminder in order to eliminate human errors in the future” and that TonyBet’s marketing department had “reviewed their Material approval process”.
TonyBet added that the “advertisement launch was not a deliberate action of the company but a mistake of a third-party employee”.
VHI
Elsewhere, VHI claimed in an ad to cover all oncology treatments, despite exclusions in its plans.
An advert on its website around cancer care featured phrases such as “complete support when you need it” and “with you every step of the way”.
“All your oncology treatment… will be fully covered by your VHI plan*”, also featured in the advert.
The asterisk below the advert read: “*Benefits vary by plan. You can check those covered on your plan in your Table of Benefits in MyVhi.”
VHI said that in an effort to “ensure transparency and avoid misunderstanding, the webpage included multiple clear and prominent disclaimers”.
VHI added that the disclaimers “did not contradict the main message of the webpage but clarified that cover was not universal through repeated reference”.
The company was said to have expressed regret for “any confusion experienced” but stated they did not believe the webpage breached the ASA Code.
However, the ASA upheld the complaint and added: “The term ‘All your oncology treatment’ could reasonably lead consumers to believe that comprehensive cancer treatment was included across all plans when this was not the case.”
The ASA ruled that the advert must not appear in that format again.
Complaints were also upheld against influencer Julie Haynes, including a claim that she used a filter while applying makeup for Inglot Cosmetics.
Neither Haynes, whose Instagram account handle is twins_and_me_, nor Inglot made any specific reference to the use of filters in response to the ASA.
A complaint was also upheld for insufficient disclosure of advertising material.
Haynes said they believed the advertising had been clearly marked, while Inglot said the content was “solely the responsibility” of Haynes.
Inglot added that they have “contacted the influencer and received an undertaking that disclosures would be more clear and prominent in future”.
