Latest decisions: Electric vehicles, alcohol advertising, and more
4 May 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 22/348 – Paingone, Farmers Trading Company & CDB Group, website and Facebook, Settled
Complaint 22/350 – Paingone, JB HIFI website and Facebook, Settled
Complaint 23/053 – Energy Efficiency Conservation Authority (EECA), Gen Less, YouTube, Not Upheld in Part, Settled in Part
Complaint 23/054 – Heineken, DB Breweries Limited, Billboard, Settled
Complaint 23/056 – TVNZ, Shortland Street, YouTube, Settled
Complaint 23/063 – Jory Henley Furniture, Facebook, Settled
Complaint 23/064 – NZ Business Funder, Facebook, Settled
Complaint 23/065 – Thirsty Liquor-Churchill Ave, Website, Settled
Complaint 23/068 – Reebelo, Facebook, Settled
Complaint 23/074 – Nissan New Zealand, Stuff, Settled
Complaint 23/075 – Bunnings NZ, Television, 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 23/035 – Tac Glasses, Global Shop Direct, Live Television, Upheld
Complaint 23/038 – McLeod’s Pizza Barn & Brewery, Billboard, Upheld
Complaint 23/042 – Fluoride Free NZ, Flyer, Upheld in Part
Complaint 23/047 – Summer Session, Posters, Upheld in Part, Not Upheld in Part
Not Upheld Complaints: The Complaints Board found the ad did not breach the Advertising Codes in relation to the complainant’s concerns.
Complaint 23/032 – McDonald’s, Out of Home, Not Upheld
Complaint 23/039 – Noel Leeming, Addressed Mail, Not Upheld
Complaint 23/043 – Biowrap Ltd, Facebook, Not Upheld
Complaint 23/048 – McDonald’s, Digital Marketing, Not Upheld
Complaint 23/050 – Supercheap Auto, Live Television, Not Upheld
Complaint 23/052 – Specsavers New Zealand Ltd, Addressed Mail, Not Upheld
No Further Action: 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 23/062 – 0800 Best Deal Cars, Out of Home, No Further Action
Complaint 23/066 – Dual Glaze, Live Television, No Further Action
Complaint 23/067 – Mitsubishi Motors New Zealand Limited, Live Television, No Further Action
Complaint 23/069 – Wildz, Television, No Further Action
Complaint 23/071 – Reality Check Radio, Unaddressed Mail, No Further Action
Complaint 23/072 – Census 2023, Statistics New Zealand, Live Television, No Further Action
Complaint 23/073 – Universal Church of the Kingdom of God (UCKG), Radio, No Further Action
Complaint 23/076 – Suzuki New Zealand, Television, No Further Action
Complaint 23/077 – Pet Refuge NZ, Out of Home, No Further Action
Complaint 23/079 – Barfoot & Thompson, Live Television, No Further Action
Complaint 23/080 – Asthetica, Out of Home, No Further Action
Complaint 23/081 – McDonald’s Restaurants (NZ) Ltd, Live Television, No Further Action
Complaint 23/082 – Electoral Commission New Zealand, Live Television, No Further Action
Complaint 23/083 – Metlink, Out of Home, No Further Action
Complaint 23/084 – Liquorland and @lovefromyourdads, Instagram, No Further Action
Complaint 23/085 – Te Whatu Ora – Health New Zealand, Radio, No Further Action
Complaint 23/087 – Vanish Stain Remover, Reckitt Benckiser (NZ) Limited, Live Television, No Further Action
Complaint 23/089 – One Choice, Pinnacle Life, Live Television, No Further Action
Complaint 23/090 – House of Travel, Print, No Further Action
Complaint 23/092 – Suzuki NZ, On Demand, No Further Action
Complaint 23/094 – Armstrong’s NZ, Audi, Digital Marketing, No Further Action
Complaint 23/095 – Ford Motors NZL, Live Television, No Further Action
Complaint 23/097 – Hope Project, Unaddressed Mail, No Further Action
Complaint 23/098 – Plumberman, Radio, No Further Action
Appeal
Complaint 22/366 Appeal 23/001 – TEBO Massage Chair, Brand Developers, Website, Appeal Dismissed, Complaint Upheld
No Jurisdiction
Complaint 23/021 – Friends of Tainui Reserve, Print, Jurisdiction Declined
Decision Summaries
Each month we summarise two decisions from the above list
Liquor website amended following social responsibility concerns
Complaint 23/065 – Thirsty Liquor – Churchill Ave, Website, Settled
Thirsty Liquor Churchill Ave have amended their website following concerns it breached the Alcohol Advertising and Promotion Code. The Complainant was concerned the website was not age gated and contained wording that was not socially responsible.
The website included the copy “On victory you deserve a beer, in defeat you need it.”
The Chair of the Complaints Board accepted the complaint to go before the Board to consider whether the Alcohol Advertising and Promotion Code had been breached.
On receipt of the complaint, the Advertiser amended the website to add an age gate and remove the wording subject to the complaint. Acknowledging the advertiser’s co-operative engagement with the ASA process and self-regulatory action in removing the wording and adding the age gate, the Chair ruled the matter was Settled.
To assist advertisers to comply with the Advertising Codes, the ASA has recently released a guide on alcohol advertising, part of the wider Get It Right The First Time series.
Gen Less EV advertisements did not breach Code
Complaint 23/053 – Energy Efficiency Conservation Authority (EECA), Gen Less, YouTube, Not Upheld in Part, Settled in Part
A complaint about three YouTube advertisements from the Energy Efficiency & Conservation Authority (EECA) have been Not Upheld in Part, and Settled in part, following concerns they made misleading claims.
The Complainant was concerned about claims made across the advertisements, including disagreeing EVs are cheaper to run, have zero emissions, hold their value longer and are good for the environment.
In response to the complaint, the Advertiser responded to each of the claims challenged by the Complainant in the advertisements.
The Complaints Board reviewed the advertisements and confirmed they fit the definition of advocacy advertising, and subsequently a more liberal interpretation of the Code applied. The Complaints Board were satisfied the Advertiser had provided sufficient evidence to support the claims made in Advertisements 1 and 2. With regard to the claim “they hold their value for longer” in Advertisement 3, the Complaints Board noted the Advertiser’s response that on reflection, the available evidence was not conclusive or rigorous enough to support this statement and it had amended the advertisement to remove this claim, and ruled this part of the complaint was Settled.
The Complaints Board said the advertisements were not misleading when viewed through the lens of advocacy advertising, and ruled the complaint was Not Upheld in Part and Settled in Part.
The ASA’s new Quick Guide: Can’t Prove It, Don’t Say It provides guidance to advertisers about the substantiation required when making claims in advertisements.
