Latest Decisions: Testimonials in advertising, and more
22 February 2023
The following are the latest decisions from the ASA.
Settled Complaints: The advertiser has amended or removed the advertisement after receiving the complaint.
Complaint 23/005 – Carterton District Council, Facebook, Settled
Complaint 23/014 – Simone Anderson, My New Tum, Instagram, Settled
Complaint 22/364 – Mrs Piss CD, The Market, Facebook, Settled
Complaint 22/377 – Nutrient Rescue, Website, Settled
Complaint 23/009 – Nutrient Rescue, YouTube, Settled
Complaint 23/020 – Flight Centre, Website, Settled
Upheld Complaints: The Complaints Board agreed with the complainant that the advertisement breached the Advertising Codes. The advertiser has been asked to remove or amend it.
Complaint 22/345 – Thin Lizzy, Brand Developers, Live Television, Upheld
Not Upheld Complaints: The Complaints Board found the ad did not breach the Advertising Codes in relation to the complainant’s concerns.
Complaint 22/371 – Propellor Property Investments, Radio, Not Upheld
Complaint 22/374 – Clyne & Bennie Ltd, Print, Not Upheld
No Grounds to Proceed: The Chair of the Complaints Board reviewed the ad and the complaint, and ruled the issues raised are not a breach of the Advertising Codes.
Complaint 23/002 – M3GAN, TVNZ+, No Grounds to Proceed
Complaint 23/010 – NZ Herald, Radio, No Grounds to Proceed
Complaint 23/016 – Apparelmaster, Facebook, No Grounds to Proceed
Complaint 23/017 – GFA World, Radio, No Grounds to Proceed
Complaint 23/018 – Chemist Warehouse, Live Television, No Grounds to Proceed
Complaint 22/379 – Dyson, Live Television, No Grounds to Proceed
Complaint 22/380 – Head and Shoulders, Procter and Gamble Australia, Live Television, No Grounds to Proceed
Complaint 23/024 – AA Insurance, Addressed Mail, No Grounds to Proceed
Complaint 23/027 – Royal Enfield Motorcycles, Website, YouTube, No Grounds to Proceed
Appeal
Complaint 22/325 Appeal 22/018, Pfizer New Zealand Limited and Family Health Diary, Television, Not Upheld
Decision Summaries
Each month we summarise two decisions from the above list
Use of testimonials in advertising requires extra care
Complaint 22/377 – Nutrient Rescue, Website, Settled
Complaint 23/009 – Nutrient Rescue, YouTube, Settled
Nutrient Rescue have amended two advertisements following concerns they contained testimonials making unsubstantiated therapeutic claims.
The YouTube and website advertisements took the form of testimonials, with both incorporating people speaking about the benefits they have felt while taking Nutrient Rescue products.
Complainants were concerned these advertisements contained unsubstantiated therapeutic claims.
Testimonials for natural health products and health services are permitted under the Therapeutic and Health Advertising Code in some instances, however advertisers must take care to ensure they do not contain any information that implies the product has a therapeutic benefit. Testimonials also should not claim or imply that the product has beneficially affected the health of a person.
Upon receipt of the complaints, Nutrient Rescue amended the advertisements. Acknowledging the Advertiser’s co-operative engagement and self-regulatory action, the Chair ruled the matter was Settled.
A outline of the restrictions around testimonial advertising is available on the Therapeutic Advertising Pre-Vetting Service (TAPS) website. To support Code compliance, Advertising Standards Authority also offers a range of training services to the advertising industry.
