25/309 Appeal 25/021 Department of Conservation, Digital Marketing

Complaint number: 25/309 Appeal 25/021
Applicant: Complainant
Advertiser: Department of Conservation
Advertisement: Department of Conservation Digital Marketing
Date: 17 December 2025
Outcome: Declined

SUMMARY

18th December 2025

25/231 Appeal 25/019 Drift Clothing, Website

Complaint number: 25/231 Appeal 25/019
Applicant: Advertiser
Advertiser: Drift Clothing
Advertisement: Drift Clothing, Website
Date: 11 December 2025
Outcome: Appeal Allowed, Complaint Not Upheld

SUMMARY

25/231 Drift Clothing, Website

Complaint number: 25/231
Advertiser: Drift Clothing
Advertisement: Drift Clothing website
Date of meeting: 21 October 2025
Outcome: Upheld in part, Not Upheld in part. Advertisement to be amended.

Summary of the Complaints Board decision
The Complaints Board upheld in part a complaint about the advertising on the Drift Clothing website. A majority of the Board said the phrase “Nothing Made in China” was offensive. A majority of the Board said the phrase “Nothing Made in China” was not misleading.

25/258 Foodstuffs South Island website

Complaint number: 25/258
Publisher: Foodstuffs South Island Limited
Publication: Foodstuffs South Island website
Date of Decision: 17 December 2025
Outcome: No Jurisdiction

Complaint:
Advertiser: Foodstuffs South Island Limited (FSSI)
Date: 1/12/2025
Complaint
I wish to lodge a complaint under the Advertising Standards Code regarding potentially misleading and unsubstantiated claims made by FSSI in its public communications about its facial-recognition trial.

25/323 Centrist Publishing, Jacinda The Untold Stories, Live Television

Complaint number: 25/323
Advertiser: Centrist Publishing
Advertisement: Jacinda The Untold Stories, Live Television
Date of Decision: 17 December 2025
Outcome: No Further Action

Complaints:
Playing the ad for an unauthorised biography of Jacinda Ardern during the ad break of the show she was on was truly targeted and despicable. It was completely intended to undermine, persuade and mislead from the interview she was giving. Extremely poor taste. I am very disappointed that they allowed it to play during that segment.

25/321 Foodstuffs NZ, New World, Live Television

Complaint number: 25/321
Advertiser: Foodstuffs NZ
Advertisement: New World, Live Television
Date of Decision: 15 December 2025
Outcome: No Further Action

Complaint: The phrase “better like beef” can be interpreted as a subtle form of discrimination against individuals who choose not to consume beef, whether for
religious, ethical, environmental, or health reasons. It implies a cultural or social norm where beef consumption is expected or preferred, marginalizing those with alternative dietary practices. This kind of language reinforces exclusionary attitudes, suggesting that non-beef eaters are outliers or less acceptable, and can perpetuate stereotypes or social pressure. In diverse societies, such expressions risk undermining inclusivity and respect for personal choices, especially when food preferences are deeply tied to identity and belief systems.

25/318 Coca-Cola Oceania, Live Television

Complaint number: 25/318
Advertiser: Coca-Cola Oceania
Advertisement: Coca-Cola, Live Television
Date of Decision: 15 December 2025
Outcome: No Further Action

Complaint: Coca Cola are currently playing an advertisement depicting a jolly older man in a red and white costume (presumably Father Christmas) sending off a Coca Cola delievery truck. However the background audio narrative refers numerous times to “Holidays are coming”. I find this very offensive as the advert has adopted the woke American euphimism of referring to “holidays” when everyone knows they are referring to Christmas. I acknowledge that Christmas is a Christian celebration but in no way does celebrating Christmas diminish the opportuntity to have other religious and cultural celebrations.

25/316 Fabrik, Kingston Calling, Digital Marketing

Complaint number: 25/316
Advertiser: Fabrik
Advertisement: Kingston Calling, Digital Marketing
Date of Decision: 15 December 2025
Outcome: No Further Action

Complaint: misleading advertising. suggesting authentic jamaican reggae from the heart of Jamaica. The headline band is british and the support bands are all from new zealand. no jamaican artists listed.

25/301 General Mills New Zealand, Old El Paso, Live Television

Complaint number: 25/301
Advertiser: General Mills New Zealand
Advertisement: Old El Paso, Live Television
Date of Decision: 15 December 2025
Outcome: No Further Action

Complaint: This ad encourages violence as it shows a woman elbowing her partner.

25/322 Coca-Cola Oceania, Out of Home

Complaint number: 25/322
Advertiser: Coca-Cola Oceania
Advertisement: Coca-Cola Oceania Out of Home
Date of Decision: 15 December 2025
Outcome: No Further Action

Complaint: I am submitting a complaint regarding the L&P Ginger Beer advertisement currently displayed around Auckland. The ad reads: “It’s ginger beer but don’t worry, you don’t have to be ginger to buy it.”

25/320 Open Adoption, Digital Marketing

Complaint number: 25/320
Advertiser: Open Adoption
Advertisement: Open Adoption Digital Marketing
Date of Decision: 15 December 2025
Outcome: No Further Action

Complaint: This advert popped up in the feed while I was browsing the New Zealand Herald online on Sunday, 7th of December, 2025.
I found this advert to be making a mockery of the Nativity scene of the Virgin Mary holding Jesus after his birth. The advert depicts a bearded man dressed as the Virgin Mary and holding a baby. I believe this advert is extremely disrespectful to the Catholic Church and Catholic people. To mock the Mother of Christ in this way is appalling and disgraceful!
In my opinion this is in breach of advertising regulations and in particular Rule 1c.

25/315 The Salvation Army, Live Television

Complaint number: 25/315
Advertiser: The Salvation Army
Advertisement: The Salvation Army Live Television
Date of Decision: 15 December 2025
Outcome: No Further Action

Complaint:
The wording and tone of the request for donations comes across as begging. Vulnerable elderly people could be persuaded to donate more than they can actually afford.

25/289 Brand Developers Ltd, Handy Saw, Television

Complaint number: 25/289
Advertiser: Brand Developers Ltd
Advertisement: Handy Saw, Television
Date of meeting: 9 December 2025
Outcome: Not Upheld

Summary of the Complaints Board decision
The Complaints Board did not uphold two complaints about the Brand Developers television advertisement promoting the Handy Saw. The Complaints Board said it was not a requirement for gloves to be worn when using a chainsaw and the advertisement presented it as a personal preference. The Board said the demonstrations of the saw’s use in the advertisement was unlikely to mislead or deceive consumers.

25/298 Clive Boonham, Unaddressed Mail

Complaint number: 25/298
Advertiser: Clive Boonham
Advertisement: Clive Boonham Unaddressed Mail
Date of Decision: 25 November 2025
Outcome: Decline to Adjudicate

Description of Advertisement:
A leaflet headed “A Personal Message from Clive Boonham Re 2025 Local Government Elections” was distributed to letterboxes in September in the Kaiwaka-Mangawhai Ward in the Kaipara District, prior to the local body elections. The leaflet contained Clive Boonham’s comments about the candidates standing for Council.

25/164 Sofitel – Grape & Olive Bar, Foodies Table, Spicy Cocktail Challenge, Digital Marketing

Complaint number: 25/164
Advertiser: Sofitel – Grape & Olive Bar
Content Creator: Foodies Table
Advertisement: Spicy Cocktail Challenge, Digital Marketing
Date of Decision: 5 December 2025
Outcome: Settled

Advertisement: The Instagram post from Foodies Table showed two people participating in the Sofitel Spicy Cocktail challenge. They introduce the challenge and the chance to win a $50 voucher. Between the two participants they consume and comment on the four levels of spicy cocktails. The text within the post provided more detail about the terms and conditions of the challenge.

25/138 Sofitel – Grape & Olive Bar, Jasmine Kim, Spicy Cocktail Challenge, Digital Marketing

Complaint number: 25/138
Advertiser: Sofitel – Grape & Olive Bar
Content Creator: Jasmine Kim
Advertisement: Spicy Cocktail Challenge, Digital Marketing
Date of Decision: 5 December 2025
Outcome: Settled

Advertisement: The Instagram post from Jasmine Kim showed her participating in the Sofitel Spicy Cocktail challenge. She introduces the challenge and the chance to win a $50 voucher. She confirms you do not have to consume all the cocktails at the same time. She then says, “I’m a bit of a daredevil and I’m going to drink all four today”. She consumes and comments on the four levels of spicy cocktails.

25/310 Spark NZ Ltd, Other, Out of Home

Complaint number: 25/310
Advertiser: Spark NZ Ltd
Advertisement: Spark NZ Ltd Other, Out of Home
Date of Decision: 15 December 2025
Outcome: No Further Action

Complaint: The ad looks racism to me. It make me unconformable when I saw it. Despite the racism first, it is usually very embarrassed when other people takes pictures when some one is just about eating something. I don’t see what is fun here. the ad contains an Asian lady, chopsticks, dumplings, makes a typical preconceptions image of Asian people, plus in this embarrassing scenarios. All of these make me think it is racism.

25/162 Wool.Life, Digital Marketing

Complaint number: 25/162
Advertiser: Wool.Life
Advertisement: Wool.Life Digital Marketing
Date of meeting: 7 October 2025
Outcome: Upheld. Advertisement not to be used again.

Summary of the Complaints Board decision
The Complaints Board upheld a complaint about a Facebook advertisement for Wool.Life dog beds. The Board said the advertisement made unsubstantiated environmental claims and was misleading.

25/162 Appeal 25/018 WUUL PRODUCTS NZ LIMITED, Wool.Life, Digital Marketing

Complaint number: 25/162 Appeal 25/018
Applicant: Advertiser
Advertiser: WUUL PRODUCTS NZ LIMITED
Advertisement: Wool.Life, Digital Marketing
Date: 11 December 2025
Outcome: Appeal Allowed, Complaint Not Upheld

SUMMARY

25/313 Zeil, Digital Marketing

Complaint number: 25/313
Advertiser: Zeil
Advertisement: Zeil Digital Marketing
Date of Decision: 8 December 2025
Outcome: No Further Action

Complaint: After some overlay of video where she’s not driving, then video then cuts to her driving through McDonald’s while filming herself, and using her phone while driving.
I have a screen record of the ad too, but it won’t let me add it to this.

10th December 2025