Ad Complaints Reports - Q1 2012
Overview
The following are case summaries of consumer complaints about advertising that were upheld by Standards Councils for the Q1 2012. Councils are composed of senior advertising industry and public representatives, who volunteer their time to adjudicate consumer 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 consumer complaints regarding advertisements that were found by a Council 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 In this section, the advertising in question was not withdrawn or amended before Council met to deliberate on the complaint.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 consumer complaints upheld by Council 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 Complaints Reports select the following links:
Identified Cases - January 1, 2012 - March 31, 2012
Canadian Code of Advertising Standards
Clause 1: Accuracy and Clarity
|
|
Advertiser: |
Buytopia.ca |
|
Industry: |
Retail |
|
Region: |
Quebec |
|
Media: |
Internet |
|
Complaint(s): |
1 |
|
Description: |
On a daily deal website, a coupon was offered at $25 for $50 worth of merchandise. In the advertisement, it was stated that this represented a discount of 50%. At the end of the advertisement, the requirement for a minimum purchase of $65 was mentioned. |
|
Complaint: |
The complainant alleged that the savings claim was not true. |
|
Decision: |
The advertiser acknowledged that an inadvertent error had been made in stating the amount of the discount. Based on the facts, Council found that the advertisement contained a misleading claim. |
|
Infraction: |
Clause 1(a). |
Clause 1: Accuracy and Clarity
|
|
Advertiser: |
Canadian Tire Corporation Ltd. |
|
Industry: |
Retail |
|
Region: |
National |
|
Media: |
Flyers |
|
Complaint(s): |
1 |
|
Description: |
A flyer advertisement featured toys that were packaged together in a box. Adjacent to the box were the words: “$9.99 each.” |
|
Complaint: |
The complainant alleged that price was misleading, because he could not buy the box of toys for $9.99. The complainant was told by the retailer that each toy cost $9.99. |
|
Decision: |
Council agreed with the complainant that when the advertisement was considered in its entirety, including the photograph of the toys inside the box, the advertisement conveyed the impression that the cost was for the entire box of toys as shown, not for each toy within the box. Council, therefore, found that the advertisement contained an inaccurate claim and did not clearly and understandably state all pertinent details of the offer. |
|
Infraction: |
Clauses 1(a) and (c). |
Clause 1: Accuracy and Clarity
|
|
Advertiser: |
Comwave |
|
Industry: |
Service |
|
Region: |
National |
|
Media: |
Television |
|
Complaint(s): |
1 |
|
Description: |
A television commercial promoting home phone plans included small-type disclaimers. |
|
Complaint: |
The complainant alleged that the disclaimers were illegible. |
|
Decision: |
Even after numerous viewings of the advertisement, Council members could not read all the information in the disclaimers. Council, therefore, found that the supered text was too small and was not displayed long enough on screen to be clearly legible. |
|
Infraction: |
Clause 1(d). |
Clause 1: Accuracy and Clarity
|
|
Advertiser: |
Dominion Lending Centres Inc. |
|
Industry: |
Service |
|
Region: |
National |
|
Media: |
Television |
|
Complaint(s): |
1 |
|
Description: |
In a television commercial the advertiser claimed that its services for obtaining competitive mortgage rates for its customers were “free.” |
|
Complaint: |
The complainant alleged that the commercial was misleading because not all the services were free. |
|
Decision: |
To Council, the commercial conveyed the general impression that customers would not be charged for any of the advertised services by the advertiser. However, this impression was contradicted by a statement on the advertiser’s website that read “a fee is charged only for the most challenging credit solutions.” Because not all of the advertiser’s services were free, Council found that the commercial contained a misleading claim and omitted relevant information about the cost of the advertised services.
|
|
Infraction: |
Clauses 1(a) and (b). |
Clause 1: Accuracy and Clarity
|
|
Advertiser: |
Kijiji Daily Deals |
|
Industry: |
Retail |
|
Region: |
National |
|
Media: |
Internet |
|
Complaint(s): |
1 |
|
Description: |
Two memory foam pillows were advertised at $49 on Kijiji’s Daily Deals webpage. |
|
Complaint: |
The complainant alleged the advertisement was misleading. Despite ordering the pillows through the website, the complainant never received them. |
|
Decision: |
Because the pillow supplier was unable to meet Kijii’s quality standards, Kijiji cancelled the deal and sent refunds to purchasers. Given that the pillows were not available as advertised, Council found that the advertisement contained an inaccurate claim. |
|
Appeal: |
On an appeal by the advertiser, the original decision of Council was confirmed. |
|
Infraction: |
Clause 1(a). |
Clause 1: Accuracy and Clarity
|
|
Advertiser: |
Quibids.com |
|
Industry: |
Service |
|
Region: |
National |
|
Media: |
Television |
|
Complaint(s): |
2 |
|
Description: |
A spokesperson in a television commercial for an online auction claimed that savings of “up to 95% off retail” were possible with this exciting new online way to shop for products. Various products were featured in the commercial showing a “retail” price together with a much lower “bid “or “sold” price. The spokesperson stated that Quibids was a new auction website, in which each auction started at $0. “When someone places a bid, the prices increase by as little as one cent, resulting in insanely low prices.” At the conclusion of the commercial, the spokesperson invited viewers to go to Quibids.com, enter promo codes, and receive a stated number of free bids. |
|
Complaint: |
The complainants alleged that the commercial omitted key information and was misleading. |
|
Decision: |
The message conveyed to Council by the commercial in its entirety was that by participating in Quibids’ online auctions, consumers could purchase products at extremely low prices, thereby saving up to 95% off regular retail prices. The commercial provided almost no information about how the auction actually worked. Nor did the commercial clarify what it cost consumers to participate in Quibids’ auction process. It was Council’s view that the advertiser had a responsibility to clearly communicate in its advertising information that was pertinent to this novel form of selling. Included in the essential information, but missing from the advertising, was the cost to participants for each bid in a Quibid auction. Also missing was an explanation that the money bid by participants is not recoverable by the bidder if he or she does not ultimately “win” the auction.
Since this important information was not clearly communicated in the commercial, Council found that the commercial was misleading, omitted relevant information in a manner that was deceptive, and did not clearly and understandably state all pertinent details of the offer.
|
|
Infraction: |
Clauses 1(a), (b) and (c). |
Clause 1: Accuracy and Clarity
|
|
Advertiser: |
Shoppers Drug Mart |
|
Industry: |
Retail |
|
Region: |
National |
|
Media: |
Flyers |
|
Complaint(s): |
2 |
|
Description: |
A video game console, including two identified video games, was advertised for sale in a flyer. |
|
Complaint: |
One of the complainants alleged that the product was not available for purchase during the promotion period. The second complainant alleged that one of the listed video games was not included as advertised. |
|
Decision: |
In its response to Council, the advertiser explained that owing to the manufacturer’s delay in shipping, some of the advertiser’s retail outlets did not receive the advertised product in time for the sale. The advertiser also acknowledged that one of the video games was incorrectly described in the flyer. Based on the facts, Council concluded that the advertisement contained an inaccurate claim about the product and omitted relevant information. While the advertiser issued a correction notice about the misdescribed game for in-store posting, no correction notice appeared to have been issued regarding the lack of inventory. |
|
Infraction: |
Clause 1(a) and (b). |
Clause 1: Accuracy and Clarity
|
|
Advertiser: |
Walmart Canada |
|
Industry: |
Retail |
|
Region: |
Manitoba |
|
Media: |
Flyers |
|
Complaint(s): |
1 |
|
Description: |
A package of 30 bottles of water was advertised for $2.97. |
|
Complaint: |
The complainant alleged the advertisement was misleading because he could not buy 30 bottles at the advertised price. |
|
Decision: |
The advertiser acknowledged that the store in question did not receive delivery of the advertised product. According to the advertiser, and based on store policy, the customer should have been provided with a raincheck. Upon discovering the lack of product, store staff should, at the very least, have also posted an in-store correction notice. Based on the facts, Council found that the advertisement was inaccurate. |
|
Infraction: |
Clause 1(a). |
Clause 1: Accuracy and Clarity
Clause 3: Price Claims
|
|
Advertiser: |
Sears Canada Inc. |
|
Industry: |
Retail |
|
Region: |
National |
|
Media: |
Internet |
|
Complaint(s): |
1 |
|
Description: |
On its website, the advertiser offered 30% off the price of Sears Outlet products, including home decor items. |
|
Complaint: |
The advertiser would not honour the discounted price on the complainant’s rug purchase. |
|
Decision: |
The advertiser advised there were technical problems with its website that may have accounted for the discount not being applied to the complainant’s purchase. However, because the discount was not applied to the rug purchase, Council found that the advertisement contained an inaccurate price claim. |
|
Infraction: |
Clauses 1(a) and 3(a). |
Clause 1: Accuracy and Clarity
Clause 3: Price Claims
|
|
Advertiser: |
TigerDirect.ca |
|
Industry: |
Retail |
|
Region: |
National |
|
Media: |
Internet |
|
Complaint(s): |
1 |
|
Description: |
In an email from the advertiser, a GPS navigational system was advertised at $39.97. |
|
Complaint: |
The advertiser would not honour the advertised price. |
|
Decision: |
The advertiser acknowledged that the price had been erroneously stated as $39.97. Based on the facts, Council found that the advertisement contained an inaccurate price claim. |
|
Infraction: |
Clauses 1(a) and 3(a). |
Clause 2: Disguised Advertising Techniques
|
|
Advertiser: |
Canada Purple Shield |
|
Industry: |
Service |
|
Region: |
Ontario |
|
Media: |
Direct |
|
Complaint(s): |
2 |
|
Description: |
The headline of a direct mail advertisement read: “Important Information for People Born After 1927! Supplement to Canada Pension Plan Benefits.” The sub-head read: “You Are Now Eligible to Receive Benefits of the Purple Shield Plan.” In the main body copy, the advertiser explained that Canada Pension Plan survivor/funeral benefits do not exceed $2500 for final expenses, and that by participating in the Final Needs Planning Program, expenses not paid by the Canada Pension Plan will be covered. In very small print at the bottom of the advertisement was a statement: “Underwritten by Assurant Life of Canada.” Readers of the advertisement were invited to request free information about Canada Purple Shield by using the form provided. The advertisement was mailed to consumers in an envelope that showed an image of the Canadian flag in the top left hand corner. In very large bold type on the front of the envelope, were the words” Canada Pension Shortfall!! Important Information Enclosed.” |
|
Complaint: |
The complainants alleged that the advertisement was misleading because it appeared to be a program sponsored by the federal government. |
|
Decision: |
To Council, the advertisement conveyed the general impression that a new government benefit program was available to make up for a shortfall in the Canada Pension Plan. Except for the small print statement “Underwritten by Assurant Life of Canada”, nothing in the advertisement disclosed the fact that the advertised product was actually an insurance policy.. Contributing to the impression that the advertisement related to a government program was language such as “Supplement to Canada Pension Plan Benefits”, and “You are eligible for the Final Needs Planning Program.“ This impression was compounded by the image of the Canadian flag on the outside of the envelope, which was reminiscent of official communications from government departments, and the words “Canada Pension Shortfall! Important Information Enclosed.” Council was particularly concerned that this advertisement could mislead vulnerable senior citizens into believing that they might be eligible for additional government benefits.
For these reasons, Council found that, overall, the advertisement was misleading, omitted relevant information in a manner that was deceptive, and did not clearly and understandably state all pertinent details of the offer. |
|
Infraction: |
Clauses 1(a), (b) and (c). |
|
Advertiser's Verbatim Statement: |
“Assurant Life of Canada stands by the accuracy of all information in this message. Assurant believes it is important that the public be aware of these facts.” |
Non-Identified Cases - January 1, 2012 - March 31, 2012
Canadian Code of Advertising Standards
Clause 1: Accuracy and Clarity
|
|
Advertiser: |
Airline |
|
Industry: |
Travel and Accommodation |
|
Region: |
National |
|
Media: |
Internet |
|
Complaint(s): |
1 |
|
Description: |
In an email from the advertiser, a round trip flight from Toronto to Amsterdam was advertised at $189, exclusive of taxes and charges. |
|
Complaint: |
The complainant alleged that he could not find a flight at the advertised price. |
|
Decision: |
The advertiser explained that flights were available at the advertised price, but it was possible that flights may not have been available at the advertised price on the dates the complainant requested. Council noted that the advertisement contained no disclaimer language such as “subject to availability” to notify consumers that not all flights were available at the advertised price on all days during the promotional period. Because this important limitation was not disclosed in the advertisement, Council found that the advertisement omitted relevant information,
The advertiser is not identified in this case summary because the advertisement was appropriately amended prior to the Council hearing.
|
|
Infraction: |
Clause 1(b). |
Clause 1: Accuracy and Clarity
|
|
Advertiser: |
Airline |
|
Industry: |
Travel and Accommodation |
|
Region: |
National |
|
Media: |
Newspaper |
|
Complaint(s): |
1 |
|
Description: |
Flights between from Toronto and another Canadian destination were advertised at a specified price. |
|
Complaint: |
The complainant alleged that he could not find a flight at the advertised price. |
|
Decision: |
The advertiser acknowledged that the word “from” had been inadvertently omitted from the price claim, as was a disclaimer indicating that seats at the advertised price were limited. Because the flight was unavailable, Council found that the advertisement contained an inaccurate claim and omitted relevant information.
The advertiser is not identified in this case summary because corrective action was taken prior to the Council hearing.
|
|
Infraction: |
Clauses 1(a) and (b). |
Clause 1: Accuracy and Clarity
|
|
Advertiser: |
Automobile Manufacturer |
|
Industry: |
Automotive |
|
Region: |
National |
|
Media: |
POS |
|
Complaint(s): |
1 |
|
Description: |
In a point of sale advertisement, 0% financing was offered on 2012 model year vehicles. A contest was included in the promotion and advertisement. |
|
Complaint: |
The complainant alleged that the advertisement was misleading because she could not obtain the advertised 0% financing rate from the dealer she visited, nor was she able to enter the contest. |
|
Decision: |
Based on the information given to Council, it appeared that important information relating to the 0% financing terms was not disclosed in the advertisement. Furthermore, the complainant was not allowed to enter the contest although she was eligible to do so based on the contest rules. Council, therefore, found that the advertisement was misleading, omitted relevant information, and did not clearly and understandably state all pertinent details of the offer.
The advertiser is not identified in this case summary because the advertisement was withdrawn before Council met to adjudicate the complaint.
|
|
Infraction: |
Clause 1(a), (b), and (c). |
Clause 1: Accuracy and Clarity
|
|
Advertiser: |
Not-for-profit Organization |
|
Industry: |
Not for profit |
|
Region: |
Atlantic Canada |
|
Media: |
Newspaper |
|
Complaint(s): |
1 |
|
Description: |
An advocacy advertisement regarding government program expenditures contained a chart comparing expenditures by various provinces. |
|
Complaint: |
That the chart exaggerated the difference among provincial expenditure levels. |
|
Decision: |
The advertiser explained it was not its intention to communicate an inaccurate message, and promptly corrected the graph for subsequent advertising. However, because the graph was inaccurate, Council found that the advertisement was misleading.
The advertiser is not identified in this case summary because the advertisement was appropriately amended prior to the Council hearing.
|
|
Infraction: |
Clause 1(a). |
Clause 1: Accuracy and Clarity
|
|
Advertiser: |
Restaurant |
|
Industry: |
Food/Supermarkets |
|
Region: |
British Columbia |
|
Media: |
Internet |
|
Complaint(s): |
1 |
|
Description: |
A clearly described and photographed meal was advertised on a daily deal website. |
|
Complaint: |
The photograph exaggerated the amount of meat included in the offer. |
|
Decision: |
The advertiser acknowledged that the amount of meat included in the meal was correctly depicted, but incorrectly described. Upon learning of the error and prior to the Council hearing, the text was amended to clarify the offer. Based on the facts, Council found that the advertisement contained an inaccurate claim.
The advertiser is not identified in this case summary because the advertisement was appropriately corrected. |
|
Infraction: |
Clause 1(a). |
Clause 1: Accuracy and Clarity
|
|
Advertiser: |
Retailer |
|
Industry: |
Retail |
|
Region: |
National |
|
Media: |
Internet |
|
Complaint(s): |
1 |
|
Description: |
In an online advertisement, the advertiser offered 50% off the price of ALL glasses, including prescription lenses. |
|
Complaint: |
The advertiser would not honour the discount because progressive lenses were excluded from the sale. |
|
Decision: |
The advertiser acknowledged that the advertisement should have made it clear that lens upgrades were excluded. Because it did not, Council found that the advertisement was misleading and omitted relevant information (i.e., that the discount only applied to standard lenses).
The advertiser is not identified in this case summary because the advertisement was appropriately amended prior to the Council hearing.
|
|
Infraction: |
Clauses 1(a) and (b). |
Clause 1: Accuracy and Clarity
|
|
Advertiser: |
Retailer |
|
Industry: |
Retail |
|
Region: |
National |
|
Media: |
Internet |
|
Complaint(s): |
4 |
|
Description: |
In an advertisement on a social media site, the advertiser offered 50% off the price of any item. |
|
Complaint: |
The complainants alleged that the advertisement was misleading because the advertiser would not honour the discount on sale items. |
|
Decision: |
The advertiser acknowledged the advertisement was wrong and that the 50% discount should have been restricted to regular priced merchandise. Based on the facts, Council found that the advertisement was inaccurate and omitted relevant information.
The advertiser is not identified in this case summary because the advertisement was appropriately corrected by publishing correction notices on the social media site, on the advertiser’s website, in-store, and in newspapers.
|
|
Infraction: |
Clause 1(a) and (b). |
Clause 1: Accuracy and Clarity
|
|
Advertiser: |
Retailer |
|
Industry: |
Retail |
|
Region: |
National |
|
Media: |
Internet |
|
Complaint(s): |
1 |
|
Description: |
An MP4 player was advertised as having radio capability. |
|
Complaint: |
The complainant alleged that the advertisement was misleading because the advertised model did not have radio capability. |
|
Decision: |
The advertiser acknowledged the error and agreed the MP4 player did not have radio capability. Based on the facts, Council found that the advertisement contained an inaccurate claim.
The advertiser is not identified in this case summary because the advertiser corrected the advertisement immediately upon learning of the mistake. |
|
Infraction: |
Clause 1(a). |
Clause 1: Accuracy and Clarity
|
|
Advertiser: |
Retailer |
|
Industry: |
Retail |
|
Region: |
National |
|
Media: |
Television |
|
Complaint(s): |
2 |
|
Description: |
A statement was made in a commercial for telecommunications devices that the advertiser carried inventory for all service providers. |
|
Complaint: |
That the advertiser did not carry products for all service providers. |
|
Decision: |
The advertiser acknowledged that the message may have been unclear. Upon learning of the complaints, the advertiser posted a correction notice on its website and in its stores. Based on the facts, Council found that the advertisement contained an inaccurate claim.
The advertiser is not identified in this case summary because the advertisement was appropriately corrected before the Council hearing though the posting of in-store and online correction notices.
|
|
Infraction: |
Clause 1(a). |
Clause 1: Accuracy and Clarity
|
|
Advertiser: |
Retailer |
|
Industry: |
Retail |
|
Region: |
National |
|
Media: |
Television |
|
Complaint(s): |
1 |
|
Description: |
A replica of a valuable historical item was advertised at a low price. Both in audio and video, the advertiser implied that the replica, like the original, would increase in value. Consumers should act quickly to take advantage of the low replica price before it increased. |
|
Complaint: |
The complainant alleged that the advertisement was misleading. |
|
Decision: |
When viewed in its entirety, the general impression conveyed to Council was that the replica, like the original historical item, should be regarded as an investment. However, there was no evidence in support of that impression. Council, therefore, found that the commercial was misleading.
The advertiser is not identified in this case summary because the advertisement was withdrawn prior to the Council hearing.
|
|
Appeal: |
On an appeal by the advertiser, the original decision of Council was confirmed. |
|
Infraction: |
Clauses 1(a) and (b). |
Clause 1: Accuracy and Clarity
|
|
Advertiser: |
Retailer |
|
Industry: |
Retail |
|
Region: |
Quebec |
|
Media: |
POS |
|
Complaint(s): |
1 |
|
Description: |
In an in-store advertisement consumers were invited to use their accumulated points in a loyalty program to pay for their purchases. |
|
Complaint: |
The advertisement was misleading because it failed to mention that a minimum purchase of $40 was required in order to use the loyalty points. |
|
Decision: |
The minimum purchase requirement was important information that should have been disclosed in the original advertisement. Because it was not, Council concluded that the advertisement was misleading, omitted relevant information, and did not clearly and understandably state all pertinent details of the offer.
The advertiser is not identified in this case summary because it appropriately corrected the advertisement as required under the Code.
|
|
Infraction: |
Clauses 1(a), (b) and (c) |
Clause 1: Accuracy and Clarity
|
|
Advertiser: |
Retailer |
|
Industry: |
Retail |
|
Region: |
Quebec |
|
Media: |
POS |
|
Complaint(s): |
1 |
|
Description: |
Through an in-store card, consumers could pre-order a video game and receive both a remote and a CD at no additional cost. |
|
Complaint: |
The complainant alleged that the advertisement was inaccurate. In fact, the remote and the CD were not free, but had to be purchased at a higher price than the video game alone. |
|
Decision: |
The advertiser acknowledged that an inadvertent error had been made in the advertisement. Council agreed with the complainant that the advertisement conveyed the impression that by pre-ordering the game, customers would get the remote and the CD as bonus items for the price of the game alone. Based on the facts, Council found that the advertisement contained an inaccurate price claim.
The advertiser is not identified in this case summary because the advertiser posted correction notices in its stores as required under the Code.
|
|
Infraction: |
Clauses 1(a) and (c). |
Clause 1: Accuracy and Clarity
|
|
Advertiser: |
Service Provider |
|
Industry: |
Service |
|
Region: |
Quebec |
|
Media: |
Direct |
|
Complaint(s): |
1 |
|
Description: |
Personalized email offers were sent to account holders indicating a $0 account balance. |
|
Complaint: |
The complainant alleged that the advertisement was misleading because his account balance was not $0. |
|
Decision: |
The advertiser acknowledged that due to an inadvertent programming error, the offer was emailed to customers who did not have $0 account balances. Based on the facts, Council found that the advertisement contained an inaccurate claim.
The advertiser is not identified in this case summary because the problem was corrected and the advertisement withdrawn prior to the Council hearing.
|
|
Infraction: |
Clause 1(a). |
Clause 1: Accuracy and Clarity
|
|
Advertiser: |
Telecommunications Service Provider |
|
Industry: |
Service |
|
Region: |
National |
|
Media: |
Direct |
|
Complaint(s): |
1 |
|
Description: |
In a direct mail promotion, a home phone plan was advertised at special rates. |
|
Complaint: |
The complainant alleged the advertisement was misleading because it did not disclose that the phone service was a Voice Over Internet Protocol (VOIP) service, which requires an Internet connection. The complainant also alleged that the advertisement failed to state that the advertised rates were promotional and would not continue after the promotion ended. |
|
Decision: |
The advertiser acknowledged that the advertisement should have, but did not state that this was a VOIP service, and that standard rates would apply once the promotion period ended. Based on the facts, Council concluded that the advertisement contained misleading claims, omitted relevant information, and did not clearly and understandably state all pertinent details of the advertised offer.
The advertiser is not identified in this case summary because the advertisement was withdrawn before Council met to adjudicate the complaint.
|
|
Infraction: |
Infraction: Clause 1(a), (b), and (c). |
Clause 1: Accuracy and Clarity
|
|
Advertiser: |
Travel Services Provider |
|
Industry: |
Travel and Accommodation |
|
Region: |
Ontario |
|
Media: |
Television |
|
Complaint(s): |
1 |
|
Description: |
The advertiser claimed it provided services between specified locations. |
|
Complaint: |
The complainant alleged that the claim was not true. |
|
Decision: |
Council agreed with the complainant and found that the commercial contained an inaccurate claim.
The advertiser is not identified in this case summary because the commercial was appropriately amended prior to the Council hearing.
|
|
Infraction: |
Clause 1(a). |
Clause 1: Accuracy and Clarity
Clause 9: Imitation
|
|
Advertiser: |
Automobile Dealer |
|
Industry: |
Automotive |
|
Region: |
Alberta |
|
Media: |
Flyers |
|
Complaint(s): |
1 |
|
Description: |
The headline of the advertisement read: “Canada Consumer Notification Consumer Alert.” Immediately adjacent to the headline was an image of the maple leaf found on the Canadian flag. In addition, the Canadian Coat of Arms was watermarked on both sides of the advertisement. Copy in the body of the advertisement referred to an “Auto Stimulus Program”, which enabled consumers to trade in their vehicles for a new one and receive up to $2000 off the purchase price. |
|
Complaint: |
That the advertisement was misleading as it appeared to be endorsed by the Government of Canada. |
|
Decision: |
Council found that several elements in the advertisement contributed to conveying the general impression that the Government of Canada was participating in and endorsed the dealer’s vehicle trade in program. These elements included: the Canadian maple leaf, the words “Canada Consumer Notification Consumer Alert,” and Canada’s Coat of Arms. Because the impression conveyed to Council by the advertisement was false, Council found that the advertisement imitated the illustrations of another advertiser in such a manner as to mislead.
The advertiser is not identified in this case summary because the advertisement was permanently withdrawn prior to the Council hearing.
|
|
Infraction: |
Clauses 1(a) and 9. |
Clause 10: Safety
|
|
Advertiser: |
Automobile Manufacturer |
|
Industry: |
Automotive |
|
Region: |
Quebec |
|
Media: |
Television |
|
Complaint(s): |
2 |
|
Description: |
Two individuals with very different driving styles were shown – one careful and the other one impulsive. |
|
Complaint: |
The impulsive driver was shown executing an unsafe parking manoeuvre. |
|
Decision: |
The unsafe parking manoeuvre was depicted in the advertisement in a very realistic and potentially appealing way that could have serious consequences if attempted by inexperienced drivers. In arriving at its decision, Council took into account Code Interpretation Guideline #4 –Alleged Infractions of Clauses 10 or 14: Motor Vehicle Advertising. Council concluded that the commercial displayed a disregard for safety by depicting a situation that might reasonably be interpreted as encouraging unsafe practices or acts.
The advertiser is not identified in this case summary because the advertisement was withdrawn before Council met to adjudicate the complaint.
|
|
Infraction: |
Clause 10 |
Clause 14: Unacceptable Depictions and Portrayals
|
|
Advertiser: |
Service Provider |
|
Industry: |
Recreation and Entertainment |
|
Region: |
Quebec |
|
Media: |
Out-of-home |
|
Complaint(s): |
1 |
|
Description: |
An advertisement showed an individual making a gesture. |
|
Complaint: |
That the depiction was highly offensive and indecent. |
|
Decision: |
Council found that the advertisement displayed obvious indifference to conduct that offended standards of public decency prevailing among a significant segment of the population.
The advertiser is not identified in this case summary because the advertisement was withdrawn prior to the Council hearing.
|
|
Infraction: |
Clause 14 (d). |
