|
Q1 2008
Overview
The following are case summaries of consumers’ complaints about advertising that were upheld by National and Regional Consumer Response Councils (Councils) for the Q1 2008. Councils are composed of senior advertising industry and public representatives, who volunteer their time to adjudicate consumers’ complaints under the provisions of the Canadian Code of Advertising Standards (Code).
The case summaries are divided into two sections.
Identified Cases
This section identifies the involved advertisers and provides details about consumers’ complaints regarding advertisements that were found by Councils to contravene the Code. In this section, the advertising in question was not withdrawn or amended before Council met to deliberate on the complaint. Where provided, an “Advertiser’s Statement” is included in the case summary.
Non-Identified Cases
This section summarizes consumers’ complaints upheld by Councils without identifying the advertiser or the advertisement. In these cases, the advertiser either withdrew, permanently retired, or appropriately amended the advertisement in question after being advised by Advertising Standards Canada that a complaint had been received, but before the matter was adjudicated by Council.
As required by the Code, retail advertisers also ran timely corrective advertisements in consumer-oriented media that reached the same consumers to whom the original advertising was directed..
For information about the Code, the Consumer Complaint Procedure, and previous Ad Complaint Reports select the following links:
Identified Cases - January 1, 2008 - March 31, 2008
Canadian Code of Advertising Standards
Clause 1: Accuracy and Clarity
|
|
Advertiser: |
AIG Life of Canada |
|
Industry: |
Finance |
|
Region: |
National |
|
Media: |
Television |
|
Complaint: |
1 |
|
Description: |
In a television commercial for an insurance product, the advertiser claimed that when a loved one dies the funeral costs and other related expenses will have to be paid by family members out of their own pockets. |
|
Complaint: |
That the advertisement was inaccurate and misleading because family members have no legal obligation to pay the debts of a deceased person. |
|
Decision: |
Council found that the commercial conveyed the general impression that family members were legally responsible to pay debts of a deceased person. Because there was no factual basis for this assertion, Council concluded that the commercial conveyed an inaccurate claim which, subsequent to Council's decision, was corrected by the advertiser. |
|
Infraction: |
Clause 1(a). |
Clause 1: Accuracy and Clarity
|
|
Advertiser: |
Best Buy Canada Ltd. |
|
Industry: |
Retail |
|
Region: |
Ontario |
|
Media: |
POS |
|
Complaint: |
1 |
|
Description: |
An in-store advertisement promoted free activation and three months free service with the purchase of a Sirius satellite radio during a specified period. |
|
Complaint: |
That the advertisement was inaccurate because it failed to mention the offer was only available with the purchase of a 24 month contract for Sirius satellite service. |
|
Decision: |
The advertiser acknowledged that the requirement of a 24–month minimum plan purchase was unintentionally omitted from the advertisement. Council concluded that the advertisement omitted relevant information, and did not state all pertinent details of an offer in a clear and understandable manner. |
|
Infraction: |
Clauses 1(b) and (c). |
Clause 1: Accuracy and Clarity
|
|
Advertiser: |
Canadian Tire Corporation, Limited |
|
Industry: |
Retail |
|
Region: |
Ontario |
|
Media: |
Flyers |
|
Complaint: |
1 |
|
Description: |
Identified brands of hockey equipment were offered in an advertisement at forty per cent off the regular price. |
|
Complaint: |
The advertisement contained the logo of a brand of equipment that was not included in the sale. |
|
Decision: |
Council concluded that the advertisement mistakenly, albeit unintentionally, featured an inaccurate claim. |
|
Infraction: |
Clause 1(a). |
Clause 1: Accuracy and Clarity
|
|
Advertiser: |
Dell Canada |
|
Industry: |
Retail |
|
Region: |
National |
|
Media: |
Internet |
|
Complaint: |
1 |
|
Description: |
A remote control device was offered at a special price. |
|
Complaint: |
That the advertised product was not available. |
|
Decision: |
After the advertisement appeared, the supplier unexpectedly discontinued supplying the product to the advertiser. Council learned that the advertiser was able to disable the online ordering function for the product but did not remove all other references to the product on its website. Council also found that the advertising disclaimer (that product availability may be limited) was not located in close proximity to the advertised offer on the website. Council, therefore, concluded that the advertisement contained an inaccurate claim and that the disclaimer was not clearly visible. |
|
Infraction: |
Clauses 1(a) and (d). |
Clause 1: Accuracy and Clarity
|
|
Advertiser: |
Dell Canada |
|
Industry: |
Retail |
|
Region: |
National |
|
Media: |
Newspaper |
|
Complaint: |
2 |
|
Description: |
In a holiday season newspaper insert, a GPS navigational device was advertised at a special price. |
|
Complaint: |
One complainant alleged that the advertised product was not available for purchase. The other complainant submitted that the disclaimer text was too small to be read. |
|
Decision: |
Due to unexpectedly high demand, the advertised product quickly sold out and the advertiser was unable to obtain additional stock from its supplier. While there was disclaimer language in the advertisement stating that availability may be limited, Council found the type used in the disclaimer was too small to be easily legible, concluding that the advertisement contained an inaccurate claim and that the disclaimer was not clearly visible. |
|
Infraction: |
Clauses 1(a) and (d). |
Clause 1: Accuracy and Clarity
|
|
Advertiser: |
Future Shop |
|
Industry: |
Retail |
|
Region: |
National |
|
Media: |
Television |
|
Complaint: |
1 |
|
Description: |
A voice-over in a TV commercial stated that a popular videogame if ordered online was “guaranteed to be here for pick-up.” |
|
Complaint: |
That the claim was misleading. After placing an online order for the game for store pick-up, the local store refused to supply the complainant. |
|
Decision: |
The commercial conveyed the overall impression that to purchase a product online, for personal pick-up from a Future Shop store, the customer only needed to place an online order. In fact, Future Shop outlets have the discretion to not accept an order. Nowhere in the commercial was it disclosed that products ordered online at Future Shop are assured of pick-up only if the identified retail store notifies the customer by email that the store has accepted the order. Council concluded that the advertisement omitted relevant information, and did not state all pertinent details of an offer in a clear and understandable manner. |
|
Infraction: |
Clauses 1(b) and (c). |
Clause 1: Accuracy and Clarity
|
|
Advertiser: |
Groupe Dumoulin Electronique Inc. |
|
Industry: |
Retail |
|
Region: |
Quebec |
|
Media: |
Newspaper |
|
Complaint: |
1 |
|
Description: |
A bluetooth headset was advertised at a special price of $5. |
|
Complaint: |
The advertised product was not available. |
|
Decision: |
Based on the acknowledged facts that the identifiable product in the advertisement was incorrect, Council concluded that the advertisement contained an inaccurate claim. |
|
Infraction: |
Clause 1(a). |
Clause 1: Accuracy and Clarity
|
|
Advertiser: |
MDG Computers Canada Inc. |
|
Industry: |
Retail |
|
Region: |
National |
|
Media: |
Newspaper |
|
Complaint: |
1 |
|
Description: |
In an advertisement featuring two Horizon computers, the advertiser offered free upgrades and free Internet service for several months. In small print, a disclaimer stated “Where advertised, after M.I.R.”. |
|
Complaint: |
The advertisement did not clarify that the “free upgrades” resulted from mail-in rebates that required an up-front payment, with reimbursement to follow at a later date. The complainant also alleged it was misleading to claim that Internet was free for two to three months when a network card was not supplied with the computer. |
|
Decision: |
The disclaimer left consumers uninformed of the details of the advertised offer. Readers of the advertisement would not necessarily understand that the advertiser intended “M.I.R” to mean “mail-in rebate.” Furthermore, the lack of a network card was considered to be relevant and necessary information that wasn't included in the advertisement. Council concluded that the advertisement omitted relevant information, and did not state all pertinent details of the offer in a clear and understandable manner. |
|
Infraction: |
Clauses 1(b) and 1(c). |
Clause 1: Accuracy and Clarity
|
|
Advertiser: |
Real Canadian Superstore |
|
Industry: |
Retail |
|
Region: |
Alberta |
|
Media: |
Flyers |
|
Complaint: |
1 |
|
Description: |
Digital picture frames were advertised for $149.99. |
|
Complaint: |
The frames were unavailable at the Edmonton store visited by the complainant. |
|
Decision: |
Due to an unexpected supply shortage some stores in the Edmonton region didn't receive any of the advertised frames. Furthermore, the Edmonton store failed to follow the advertiser's standard policy of posting an in-store retraction notice to inform customers when advertised products are unavailable. Based on the facts, Council concluded that the advertisement contained an inaccurate claim. |
|
Infraction: |
Clause 1(a). |
Clause 1: Accuracy and Clarity
|
|
Advertiser: |
Sears Canada Inc. |
|
Industry: |
Retail |
|
Region: |
National |
|
Media: |
Internet |
|
Complaint: |
1 |
|
Description: |
The advertiser offered twin-sized bedding for $9.99 in its online Wishbook catalogue. |
|
Complaint: |
The advertiser declined to honour the advertised price. |
|
Decision: |
Council understood that the incorrect price information was unintentionally and mistakenly posted on the advertiser's website. After receiving the complaint, Sears amended the online advertisement by removing the $9.99 price reference. However, the advertiser did not post a correction notice online to bring both the error and the correction to the attention of consumers, as is required of retail advertisers by the Code. Based on the facts, Council concluded that the advertisement contained an inaccurate price claim. |
|
Infraction: |
Clause 1(a). |
|
Advertiser's Verbatim Statement: |
"Sears Canada makes every effort to ensure that the content on our sears.ca website is accurate and complete. Once we were informed of the pricing error, we quickly took steps to correct the online advertisement in question. Since the pricing error was, at that point, completely rectified, we did not believe there was any benefit for our customers in posting a correction notice after the fact - there was no longer any error to correct." |
Clause 1: Accuracy and Clarity
|
|
Advertiser: |
The Mobile Generation |
|
Industry: |
Service |
|
Region: |
National |
|
Media: |
Television |
|
Complaint: |
1 |
|
Description: |
A contest to win a Family Guy DVD box set and DVD player was advertised in a television commercial for a mobile subscription service.
|
|
Complaint: |
The commercial did not disclose that the subscription service charged a fee for each message that was sent. |
|
Decision: |
The terms applicable to the advertised service were not clearly disclosed. Council found that the supered disclaimer was of a size and colour that made it very difficult to read. As well, the voice-over audio portion at the end of the commercial was spoken too quickly and softly to be clearly understandable. Council concluded that the commercial did not clearly and understandably state all details of the advertised offer, and that the disclaimer was not presented in a manner that was clearly visible or audible. |
|
Appeal: |
Council's decision was confirmed by a new Appeal Panel after considering the advertiser's appeal. |
|
Infraction: |
Clauses 1(c) and (d). |
|
Advertiser's Verbatim Statement: |
“Although, The Mobile Generation stands behind the function and importance of the Canadian Code of Advertising Standards; we would like to express, however, that we do not concur with the Council’s ruling nor the original complaint. We believe that both our audio and visual disclaimers provided all mandated service information, according to not only the Canadian Code but in the same manner as other advertisement, of the same nature, which were running at that time. We also believe that the original complaint was made without perspective of the unique, mature audience of the “Family Guy” television show nor the unique retro programming offered by the TV Channel. Had these factors been taken into consideration; it would have been understood that the exposure of the advertisement would have been only to an older demographic; whom by nature, would have undoubtedly undertook the responsibility of understanding the service advertised, prior to participating.“ |
Clause 14: Unacceptable Depictions and Portrayals
|
|
Advertiser: |
American Apparel |
|
Industry: |
Retail |
|
Region: |
British Columbia |
|
Media: |
Magazine |
|
Complaint: |
1 |
|
Description: |
Appearing on the back cover of a free distribution magazine was a panty advertisement that focussed provocatively on the scantily covered buttocks of an otherwise undressed woman lying on her stomach on bed sheets. |
|
Complaint: |
That the advertisement was sexually exploitative of women. |
|
Decision: |
Council unanimously concluded the focus and presentation in this advertisement, particularly on the back cover of a free distribution magazine, denigrated and disparaged women and offended standards of public decency contrary to Clause 14 (d) of the Code. |
|
Infraction: |
Clauses 14(c) and (d). |
Non-Identified Cases - January 1, 2008 - March 31, 2008
Canadian Code of Advertising Standards
Clause 1: Accuracy and Clarity
|
|
Advertiser: |
Consumer Product Manufacturer |
|
Industry: |
Personal and Proprietary |
|
Region: |
National |
|
Media: |
Television |
|
Complaint: |
1 |
|
Description: |
A television commercial illustrated the lengthening effects of a mascara product. |
|
Complaint: |
That the commercial misled viewers because the depiction could not have been achieved unless false eyelashes or lash inserts were used. |
|
Decision: |
The use of false eyelashes/inserts in mascara commercials is important information that must be clearly communicated so that viewers understand the basis for the depiction and claim. Otherwise, viewers may not understand that the depicted results may not be achievable without the use of false eyelashes or inserts. Council found that the small-type super in this commercial (stating that lash inserts had been used) was neither large enough nor on screen long enough to be easily read and understood by viewers. Council, therefore, concluded that the disclaimer was not presented in a manner that was clearly visible. |
|
Infraction: |
Clause 1(d). |
Clause 1: Accuracy and Clarity
|
|
Advertiser: |
Consumer Product Manufacturer |
|
Industry: |
Personal and Proprietary |
|
Region: |
National |
|
Media: |
Television |
|
Complaint: |
1 |
|
Description: |
A commercial for a brand of mascara claimed the advertised product would significantly enhance lashes. |
|
Complaint: |
That the commercial was misleading because the depicted results could not have been achieved without the use of false eyelashes or lash inserts.
|
|
Decision: |
In its response to Council, the advertiser did not state whether or not the woman featured in the commercial was wearing false eyelashes or lash inserts, leaving Council to draw its own conclusion on that matter. The use of false eyelashes/inserts in mascara commercials is important information that must be clearly communicated so that viewers understand the basis for the depiction and claim. Otherwise, viewers may not understand that the depicted results may not be achievable without the use of false eyelashes or inserts. Based on its assessment of this commercial Council concluded that the woman was wearing false eyelashes or lash inserts, and this was not disclosed. Council, therefore, found that the commercial omitted relevant information. |
|
Infraction: |
Clause 1(b). |
Clause 1: Accuracy and Clarity
|
|
Advertiser: |
Entertainment Company |
|
Industry: |
Service |
|
Region: |
Ontario |
|
Media: |
Newspaper |
|
Complaint: |
1 |
|
Description: |
A contest offering cash prizes was the subject of a newspaper advertisement. |
|
Complaint: |
The advertisement failed to state that acquiring a club membership was a condition of entry. |
|
Decision: |
The advertiser acknowledged that the advertisement failed to include important details regarding the contest. Council concluded that this advertisement omitted relevant information and did not include all pertinent details of the advertised offer. |
|
Infraction: |
Clauses 1(b) and (c). |
Clause 1: Accuracy and Clarity
|
|
Advertiser: |
Financial Services Company |
|
Industry: |
Finance |
|
Region: |
National |
|
Media: |
Television |
|
Complaint: |
1 |
|
Description: |
A financial service was advertised at an attractively low price. |
|
Complaint: |
The fact that other fees may be applicable was presented in an illegible super. |
|
Decision: |
Council concluded that the video disclaimer was not large enough to be clearly visible. |
|
Infraction: |
Clause 1(d). |
Clause 1: Accuracy and Clarity
|
|
Advertiser: |
Hotel |
|
Industry: |
Travel and Accommodation |
|
Region: |
National |
|
Media: |
Newspaper |
|
Complaint: |
1 |
|
Description: |
A special low room rate was advertised for any overnight stay if booked during a specified period of time. At the bottom of the advertisement there was a disclaimer stating “Subject to availability.” |
|
Complaint: |
The complainant, who tried to book a room on the first day of the promotion, was told that none were available. |
|
Decision: |
Given the limited number of rooms the advertiser set aside for the promotion during the peak travel season, Council found that the disclaimer, “Subject to availability,” contradicted the more prominent aspect of the message, namely that consumers could enjoy the special room rate for any overnight stay in 2008. |
|
Infraction: |
Clause 1(d). |
Clause 1: Accuracy and Clarity
|
|
Advertiser: |
Retailer |
|
Industry: |
Retail |
|
Region: |
National |
|
Media: |
Direct |
|
Complaint: |
1 |
|
Description: |
The advertiser advertised 20 per cent off the total purchase price of every item in every department throughout the store. |
|
Complaint: |
The advertising was inaccurate because many major advertised brands were excluded from the sale. |
|
Decision: |
The advertiser acknowledged that terms such as "every,” “entire” and “all” were too strong when applied to an offer that the advertiser qualified by a disclaimer. In small print size the disclaimer said, in effect, that not every item, not everything in the store, and not all purchases were discounted. Council concluded that the disclaimer in the advertisement contradicted the more prominent aspects of the main message. |
|
Infraction: |
Clause 1(d). |
Clause 1: Accuracy and Clarity
|
|
Advertiser: |
Telecommunications Company |
|
Industry: |
Service |
|
Region: |
National |
|
Media: |
Internet |
|
Complaint: |
4 |
|
Description: |
The advertiser claimed on its website that its download speeds were as fast – or faster than – any other high-speed Internet service. |
|
Complaint: |
That the claim was misleading. |
|
Decision: |
The advertiser acknowledged that the speed of any Internet service is affected by a variety of factors. Council concluded that the advertising that contained this broad and unqualified claim was misleading because it omitted relevant information and did not clearly and understandably state all pertinent details of the advertised offer. |
|
Infraction: |
Clauses 1(a), (b) and (c). |
Clause 1: Accuracy and Clarity
|
|
Advertiser: |
Travel Services Provider |
|
Industry: |
Travel and Accommodation |
|
Region: |
Quebec |
|
Media: |
Internet |
|
Complaint: |
1 |
|
Description: |
The advertiser offered bonus reward points for travel booked within a specific week. |
|
Complaint: |
Although the complainant booked travel within the specified time, the advertiser would not provide him with the applicable points. |
|
Decision: |
The advertiser acknowledged it mistakenly failed to award the bonus points. Based on these facts, Council found that the advertisement contained inaccurate representations and did not clearly and understandably state all pertinent details of the offer. |
|
Infraction: |
Clauses 1 (a) and 1(c). |
 |
|
