The ASA ruled that the actress appeared below the age of 16 in the advert, although this was disputed by Coty UK. The ruling was also based on the length of the dress worn and the relative positions of the actress’ legs and the bottle of perfume, all of which drew attention to her sexuality. The ASA ruled that the advert was in breach of the CAP Code, the code of practice aimed at ensuring that non-broadcast adverts and material on websites comply with certain minimum standards. As such, it was ruled that the advert should not appear again in its current form.

The complaint was that the website had been misleading as it had not set out that the surcharges were not optional in order to make a purchase from the website. It was also argued that the website was misleading in the way it set out VAT on purchases, as the price quoted was with the figure excluding of VAT, whereas in all cases VAT would apply.

The ASA upheld both parts of the complaint, ruling that there had been a breach of the CAP Code in terms of misleading advertising and pricing. The CAP Code is the code of practice aimed at ensuring adverts, including material written on businesses’ own websites and social networking websites, are fair and not misleading. The ASA is a regulator in charge of enforcing the CAP Code.

This issue is increasingly in the public eye. The Office of Fair Trading recently told travel companies to make credit and debit card surcharges clearer on their websites. In addition, the Consumer Rights Directive recently adopted by the European Union requires pricing to be more clearly set out.

Many people may be under the misapprehension that they have until the Consumer Rights Directive is brought into force under English law (likely to be about two years from now) before they have to make all charges clear up front in an online order process. In fact, as this ruling shows, failure to be up front and clear on pricing is already a breach of the CAP Code and the ASA enforces the CAP Code even for something said on an organisation’s own website. Although a breach of the Code does not have legal effect, it can result in bad publicity and an inability to obtain advertising space in the future.

The CAP Code is a code of practice that seeks to ensure that adverts comply with certain minimum standards. Although the CAP Code does not have legal force, it is best practice to comply with it, as failure to do so can result in bad publicity and ultimately an inability to obtain advertising space.

The ASA’s ruling can be found here: http://www.asa.org.uk/ASA-action/Adjudications/2011/10/DMC-Digital-Ltd/SHP_ADJ_162815.aspx.

The only surprise with these figures is that the increase is not even greater. We have a number of clients who have come to us for advice on compliance with the new rules, and we also know from some instances that the ASA has been pleased to receive and investigate complaints from competitors and customers.

When an ISP advertises “unlimited” services, that term must only be used where a user will not incur an additional charge (or a suspension) for exceeding a specific usage limit. In addition, limitations that affect speed or usage of a service must be “moderate” and clearly explained in the advert.

When advertising the speed of services, ISPs must be able to demonstrate that a particular speed is achievable for a minimum of 10% of customers, and provide sufficient information to ensure that an average user is not misled. In particular, this information should state, where relevant, that a large number of users will not receive the speed advertised.

The guidance comes fully into effect on 1 April 2012 and advertisers should produce any new material with the guidance in mind.

The ASA’s ruling can be found here: http://www.asa.org.uk/ASA-action/Adjudications/2011/9/British-Telecommunications-plc/SHP_ADJ_155704.aspx.

Accordingly, the ASA ruled that the adverts were misleading and British Gas had breached the BCAP Code for television and radio adverts and the CAP Code for non-broadcast adverts.  The self-regulatory body added that text in the adverts explaining that same-day service was limited during weekend, on public holidays and during exceptional peak demand was not properly qualified. The advertising Codes are not legally enforceable, but it is best practice to comply with them as failure to do so could result in bad publicity and an inability to obtain future advertising space.

The two magazine adverts, one relating to “Teint Miracle” foundation by Lancôme featuring the actress Julia Roberts and the other relating to “The Eraser” foundation by Maybelline and featuring the model Christy Turlington, were intended to show how well the foundation worked to have an anti-ageing effect by covering wrinkles. They were challenged by Jo Swinson, an MP, for being misleading and not representative of the results that the products could actually achieve. L’Oréal, owner of both Lancôme and Maybelline, produced evidence that both products were capable of improving the skin’s appearance, and also argued that the subjects, Julia Roberts and Christy Turlington, had naturally healthy skin which added to the effect of the adverts.

In both instances, the ASA ruled that the claims made in the adverts as to the effect of the products were supported by the testing evidence that L’Oréal had produced. However, the ASA also ruled that the image used in each advert was not an accurate reflection of the results that could actually be achieved by using the product. As such, both adverts were ruled to be misleading and cannot appear again in their current form.

The adverts breached the CAP Code. The CAP Code is a code of practice governing the content of adverts and marketing communications and is administered by the ASA. Although the Code does not have legal force, it is best practice to comply with it, as failure to do so can result in bad publicity and ultimately an inability to obtain advertising space.

The ASA rulings can be found here and here.

The ASA gave two reasons for the ruling:

1. The adverts should have made clear to consumers how they could verify the claims made.
2. The adverts were considered to be misleading as they did not accurately reflect market research on which they were based.

The importance of this ruling is that an advertiser must take care in what information is contained in a comparative advertisement. In order to comply with the CAP Code, an advertiser must enable a consumer to be able to verify the basis of the comparative claims made in the advert. This can be contained in the small print, but must actually be able to guide a consumer to see the data on which the comparison is made so that they can verify the advert personally.

The CAP Code is a code of practice governing the content of adverts and marketing communications, and it is administered by the ASA. Although the Code does not have legal force, it is best practice to comply with it, as failure to do so can result in bad publicity and ultimately an inability to obtain advertising space.

The CAP Code is a code of practice governing the content of adverts and marketing communications and is administered by the Advertising Standards Authority. Although it does not have legal force, it is best practice to comply with it, as failure to do so can result in bad publicity and ultimately an inability to obtain advertising space.

The ruling related to a promotion in The Sun newspaper by Complete Orlando which offered the opportunity to win a holiday if entrants submitted a re-creation of their favourite rollercoaster moment in a video or photo. The best few entries would be put on the Internet as the ‘finalists’ and be voted on by the public. The entry with the most votes would win the holiday. The initial rules stated that there would be five finalists published on the Internet, but 14 finalists were eventually available to vote upon due to the quality of the entries that the promoter believed they had received.

The ASA was of the opinion that entrants in the promotion before the rules changed might not have checked the website again to find that the rules had changed, and would have believed that they had a better chance of winning as one of five finalists rather than as one of 14. The ASA therefore decided that the promotion had been administered unfairly under the CAP Code and that it should not appear again in its current form.

This is an important reminder for promoters to keep the rules of their competitions consistent from the date the promotion opens and the rules have been published. Whilst the ASA’s rulings do not lead to a penalty, they can lead to adverse publicity and may make it harder for the advertiser to get advertising space in future.

The CAP Code is a code of practice governing the content of adverts and marketing communications. It is administered by the ASA. Although the Code does not have legal force, it is best practice to comply with it, as failure to do so can result in bad publicity and ultimately an inability to obtain advertising space. The CAP Code does not specify a minimum size of font for the small print on such advertising posters, so this ruling is useful guidance to advertisers. Advertisers should err on the side of caution and ensure that the small print on poster is larger rather than smaller.

As reported in Upload-IT in September 2010, from 1 March 2011 marketing communications on any space within a business’s control, including its own websites and space on Facebook and Twitter, will have to comply to the non-broadcast advertising rules as set out in the CAP Code, the full text of which can be found here. Our article, which includes full details of the changes, can be found here.

Businesses must comply with the CAP Code by 1 March or risk an ASA investigation taking place, which can damage a business’s reputation and make it difficult for that business to find advertising space. For practical and cost-effective help and advice on how to comply with these changes, please contact us at Matthew Arnold & Baldwin before it’s too late.

The advert therefore breached the CAP Code.  The CAP Code is a code of practice governing the content of adverts and marketing communications and is administered by the ASA. Although the Code does not have legal force, it is best practice to comply with it, as failure to do so can result in bad publicity and ultimately an inability to obtain advertising space.

The ASA required that the advert is not used again unless it is changed in accordance with the ruling.

The full text of the wording can be found here.

The CAP Code is a code of practice governing the content of adverts and marketing communications. It is administered by the ASA. Although the Code does not have legal force, it is best practice to comply with it, as failure to do so can result in bad publicity and ultimately an inability to obtain advertising space.

It is even more important than ever to pay attention to the ASA’s rulings as, from 1 March, the CAP Code will apply to advertisements and other marketing communications on people’s own websites and in other non paid-for space online under their control.

The CAP Code is a code of practice governing the content of adverts and marketing communications and is administered by the ASA. Although it does not have legal force, it is best practice to comply with it, as failure to do so can result in bad publicity and ultimately an inability to obtain advertising space.

With effect from 1 March 2011, the CAP Code will apply to advertisements and other marketing communications on advertisers’ own websites and in other non paid-for space online under their control. A three stage test will be undertaken to see if a particular advert is covered, but essentially businesses will be safest just to assume that any material about them or their goods or services on their own websites or on any social media website under their control will be caught.

Although the Code does not have legal force, it is best practice to comply with it, as failure to do so can result in bad publicity and ultimately an inability to obtain advertising space. This restriction on being able to obtain advertising space will move into the online world when the changes come into effect, as the ASA will co-operate with search engines to remove adverts that link to the non-compliant material.

Paul Gershlick, a Partner at Matthew Arnold & Baldwin LLP and editor of Upload-IT, comments: ‘Businesses should consider these changes as part of an overall website review. Whilst these changes will add another layer to the regulatory requirements that businesses face, there are other important legal requirements that many websites don’t yet comply with but should do. We regularly come across websites that don’t comply with Distance Selling Regulations, E-Commerce Regulations, the Data Protection Act or other laws, or otherwise expose themselves by failing to take simple measures. Help is at hand and it doesn’t have to cost a fortune. We have helped many of our clients through this online legal maze in a practical and cost-effective way.’

The CAP Code is a code of practice governing the content of adverts and marketing communications, and it is administered by the ASA. Although the Code does not have legal force, it is best practice to comply with it, as failure to do so can result in bad publicity and ultimately an inability to obtain advertising space.

Paul Gershlick, a Partner at Matthew Arnold & Baldwin LLP and editor of Upload-IT, comments: ‘This is a tricky one for businesses. It is possible under the Data Protection Act to inform customers who have opted-out of marketing communications, as part of normal contact with them, of a change of service or even a new aspect of the service that they may not otherwise be aware of. But specifically promoting to them or telling them what they are missing is not permitted. It can be a very fine line and a grey area, as this case has shown.’

The ad breached the CAP Code. The CAP Code is a code of practice governing the content of adverts and marketing communications, and it is administered by the ASA. Although the Code does not have legal force, it is best practice to comply with it, as failure to do so can result in bad publicity and ultimately an inability to obtain advertising space.

The ASA administers the CAP Code. The CAP Code is a code of practice governing the content of adverts and marketing communications. Although the Code does not have legal force, it is best practice to comply with it, as failure to do so can result in bad publicity and ultimately an inability to obtain advertising space.  A new CAP Code is due to come into force on 1 September.

The ASA ruled that the advertising was misleading because it did not make clear that it was a marketing communication and used techniques which gave the opposite impression. The claims about the purported success of the business were also not substantiated. A third claim about the photograph with Mr Banatyne was deemed not to have been misleading because it did not suggest that he had endorsed Mr Cardell – instead, only that they were at the same event.

Accordingly, Mr Cardell had breached the CAP Code on two counts, and he was warned not to use the advert again in its current form. The CAP Code is a code of practice governing the content of adverts and marketing communications, and it is administered by the ASA. Although the Code does not have legal force, it is best practice to comply with it, as failure to do so can result in bad publicity and ultimately an inability to obtain advertising space.  A new CAP Code will come into force on 1 September.

Amongst the changes are the following:

• More consistency between the CAP Code and BCAP Code, such as for misleading advertising, harm and offence
• The Codes are intended to be simple, user-friendly and joined-up.
• Television and radio advertising need to have regard to social responsibility to the audience and society as a whole.
• A prohibition on collecting data from under 12 year-old children without the consent of their parents or guardian. In addition, information cannot be collected from under 16 year-olds about other people.
• Further clarification over how to use the word ‘free’.
• A prohibition on advertisers from exaggerating any environmental benefits. Absolute claims of green credentials must be supported by a high level of substantiation. Meanwhile, comparable claims such as ‘greener’ or ‘friendlier’ must be justifiable on the basis of the total environmental impact over the previous range or the competitor’s product. The environmental claims must be measured over the full lifecycle of the product. As with other ads, the green qualities must not mislead.

In addition, the ASA objected to the fact that the survey had asked people to give the products a mark out of 10 and although Hovis’s average was higher it was not necessarily chosen preferred by more people.

Consequently, the ad breached the CAP Code. The CAP Code is a code of practice governing the content of adverts and marketing communications, and it is administered by the ASA. Although the Code does not have legal force, it is best practice to comply with it, as failure to do so can result in bad publicity and ultimately an inability to obtain advertising space.

The CAP Code is a code of practice governing the content of adverts and marketing communications, and it is administered by the ASA. Although the Code does not have legal force, it is best practice to comply with it, as failure to do so can result in bad publicity and ultimately an inability to obtain advertising space.

The CAP Code is a code of practice governing the content of adverts and marketing communications, and it is administered by the ASA. Although the Code does not have legal force, it is best practice to comply with it, as failure to do so can result in bad publicity and ultimately an inability to obtain advertising space. The ASA here ruled that KMC must not use the advert again and should ensure it had people’s approval for products allegedly endorsed by them.

Paul Gershlick, a Partner at Matthew Arnold & Baldwin LLP and editor of www.Upload-IT.com, comments: ‘This seems the correct result. It follows on from the Eddie Irvine case a few years ago which established image rights, when the racing driver was awarded £25,000 by the Court of Appeal after talkSPORT had featured his photo superimposed with a radio containing talkSPORT’s logo without his permission. This latest ruling shows that the ASA will also take action to stop the practice. In addition, it may now be possible for traders conducting misleading practices to be prosecuted under the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations.’