Latest decisions: misleading terms and conditions, use of partial quotes in ads, and more
12 October 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 23/196 – Composting New Zealand, Radio, Settled
Complaint 23/199 – Drink Bee, Digital Marketing, Settled
Complaint 23/201 – Dr Wonder Smile NZ, Digital Marketing, Settled
Complaint 23/207 – My Cup NZ, Digital Marketing, Settled
Complaint 23/209 – Lion, Steinlager, All Blacks, Out of Home, Settled
Complaint 23/210 – Harrisons Group, Digital Marketing, Settled
Complaint 23/211 – 2degrees Mobile, Digital Marketing, Settled
Complaint 23/212 – One33 Vincent, Out of Home, Settled
Complaint 23/213 – Chinga Clothing, Digital Marketing, Settled
Complaint 23/214 – Energyworks, Digital Marketing, Settled
Complaint 23/215 – Life Light New Zealand, Digital Marketing, Settled
Complaint 23/216 – Auckland Transport, Digital Marketing, Print, Radio, Settled
Complaint 23/218 – Dan’s Traditional Barbershop, Out of Home, Settled
Complaint 23/223 – Brett Stevens, Print, Settled
Complaint 23/225 – Skippers Mate, Digital Marketing, Settled
Complaint 23/231 – Rude Health Coffee, Digital Marketing, Settled
Complaint 23/233 – The Nun II, On Demand, Settled
Complaint 23/247 – Property Brokers, Radio, 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 23/121 – Goodbye Dusty, Myall, Website, Upheld
Complaint 23/171 – Jackpot City, Billboard, Upheld in Part
Complaint 23/190 – Staircase Financial Management, Radio, Upheld
Complaint 23/217 – Genesis Energy Limited, Website, Upheld
Not Upheld Complaints: The Complaints Board found the ad did not breach the Advertising Codes in relation to the complainant’s concerns.
Complaint 23/200 – Z Energy Limited, Website, Mobile Splash, Not Upheld
Complaint 23/220 – SKY TV, Television, Not Upheld
Complaint 23/255 – NZ Labour Party-Tāmati Coffey, 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 23/206 – The Warehouse Limited, Radio, No Further Action
Complaint 23/208 – Lotto NZ, Live Television, No Further Action
Complaint 23/222 – SAFE for Animals, On Demand, No Further Action
Complaint 23/226 – The Warehouse Limited, Live Television, No Further Action
Complaint 23/228 – New Zealand Council of Trade Unions, Print, No Further Action
Complaint 23/234 – One NZ, Live Television, No Further Action
Complaint 23/235 – Supplement Shop, Out of Home, No Further Action
Complaint 23/237 – Remax New Zealand, Digital Marketing, No Further Action
Complaint 23/240 – Free to Sell Cars, Radio, No Further Action
Complaint 23/244 – Smith & Smith Autoglass, Live Television, No Further Action
Appeal
Complaint 23/091 Appeal 23/002 – The Pope’s Exorcist Trailer, Sony Pictures NZ, YouTube, Settled
Complaint 23/230 Appeal 23/007 – NZ Labour Party, Shanan Halbert, Unaddressed Mail, Declined
Decision Summaries
Each month we summarise two decisions from the above list
Property investment company breached Financial Advertising Code by misleading consumers
Complaint 23/190 – Staircase Financial Management, Radio, Upheld
The radio ad for Staircase Financial Management used four quotes from media articles to support their view of the current property market, including interest rates, property prices, immigration and housing consent numbers. The advertisement concluded with the claim “it is the perfect time to buy a rental property” and directed listeners to their website.
The Complainant was concerned the partial quotes used in the advertisement were taken out of context and likely to misrepresent the content of the articles.
In their response, the advertiser stated they had taken care to gather information from multiple sources across New Zealand to gather a well-rounded snapshot of the current market and provided links to the full articles as substantiation.
The Complaints Board reviewed each of the four quotes and in a majority decision, found that in two of the cases the consumer takeout of the advertisement had the potential to mislead listeners as to the actual content of the full article.
The majority of the Complaints Board said the advertisement had not met the high standard of social responsibility required of financial advertisements and had breached the Financial Advertising Code.
In accordance with the majority, the complaint was Upheld, and the advertisement removed.
Our Quick Guide: Can’t Prove It? Don’t Say It! provides guidance for advertisers on substantiating claims.
Genesis Energy misled consumers on eligibility of “free power shout” promotion
Complaint 23/217 – Genesis Energy Limited, Website, Upheld
A Genesis Energy advertisement has been found to breach the Advertising Standards Code for failing to make relevant eligibility criteria clear and accessible in their terms and conditions.
The advertisement for the Genesis Energy “Free Power Shout” stated in part “Power Shout gives you the flexibility to enjoy free electricity anytime you like*” with a link to the promotion terms and conditions. These terms and conditions stated that “To be eligible for a Power Shout you must … be an existing Genesis residential electricity customer on an eligible electricity plan”. A definition of “an eligible electricity plan” was not provided in these terms and conditions. The text “Sorry, Energy Basic customers are not eligible for Power Shout” was located further down the website page under the section “Got some questions?”.
The Complainant was concerned the advertisement was misleading, as it was not clear from the terms and conditions that some plans were excluded.
In their response, the Advertiser defended the advertisement, saying all references to Power Shouts on their website made it clear to consumers that eligibility criteria applied, that the Genesis website was factually correct and contained clearly signposted eligibility criteria.
The Complaints Board Upheld the complaint, noting it was reasonable to expect the restriction on eligibility would be included in the terms and conditions, which it wasn’t. The Board said relevant information about the offer was not sufficiently clear or accessible and was likely to mislead and confuse consumers.
Our Quick Guide: Check It Before You Release It provides our top tips for creating Code compliant advertisements.
