This report contains 70 Cross-Border Complaint and Information Exchange cases handled by the EASA under its Cross-Border Complaint System and closed during the period October 1999 - February 2000. 63 of these relate to issues of Misleadingness, 3 to Unsolicited Mail, 2 to Taste and Decency and 1 to Non-Fulfilment and 1 Illegal. The media used is Direct Mail with 68 complaints, and Press with 2 complaints. Previous reports can be found by going here and information on the yearly numbers of cross-border complaints by going to the Statistics page. For assistance regarding the acronyms of member organisations please, go to the SRO Members section. Euro Ad alert can be reached by going to the specific case.
Misleading:

230 ACER COMPUTERS (F): Objection received by the ASA (UK), from a UK consumer, to a press ad for computers in a French publication. The ad stated that ACER's laptop computer was the only laptop with over nine hours of battery life, and that it also had twice the battery life of any other laptop. The complainant believed that these two claims were misleading because firstly, his computer (a different brand), had at least nine hours battery life, and secondly, even without extra battery the complainant's computer had six or seven hours of battery life. ASA referred the complaint to the BVP (F). BVP contacted the magazine, which advised, after investigation, that it had no record of having carried the advertisement in question. The BVP contacted the complainant, but as no further evidence could be gained the case was closed. CASE CLOSED. 

234, 240, 256, 267, 268, 284 SWISS LOTTERY/SLIMMING PRODUCT ADVERTISER 1 (CH): Objection received by the ASA (UK), from six UK consumers, to a direct mailing from a Swiss advertiser. The ad featured a lottery, and also offered a slimming product. The complainants believed that the mailing was misleading on two grounds. Firstly, it gave the impression that the recipient had won a large amount of money. Secondly, the complainants challenged the authenticity of the slimming claims made for the advertised product. ASA referred the complaint to the CSL (CH) for investigation. CSL informed ASA that the complaint had been transferred to the Swiss Post Office, the Commercial Register authorities and to the Swiss Federal Office for Business and Employment for investigation. COMPLAINT TRANSFERRED TO APPROPRIATE AUTHORITIES.  

252 NORD EXPRESS DISTRIBUTION (D): Objection received by the BVP (F), from a French consumer, to a direct mailing from a German advertiser. The ad was in the form of a bogus invoice. The complainant believed that the ad was misleading. The BVP referred the com-plaint to the DW (D), who in turn passed the case to the Zentrale as this was the competent authority in this case. The Zentrale discovered that the address given for the advertiser was the same as that being used in another complaint, and after investigation transferred the case
to the Department of Public Prosecution. COMPLAINT TRANSFERRED TO APPROPRIATE AUTHORITIES.   

265, 271-3, 283, 285 SWISS INVOICE ADVERTISER (CH): Objection received by the ASA (UK), from six UK consumers via local Trading Standards Offices, to a direct mailing from a Swiss advertiser. The ad took the form of an invoice. The complainants believed that the mailing was misleading. ASA referred the complaint to the CSL (CH). The ASA also asked for assistance from SRC (NL) as the advertiser's fulfilment house was based in The Netherlands. The SRC subsequently received a response from a Belgian fulfilment house, which stated that it took care of the orders, storage of products, delivery of orders and receipt of payment, but that it was not responsible for product selection or advertising. The CSL transferred the case to the Swiss Post Office, the Commercial Register authorities and to the Swiss Federal Office for Business and Employment for investigation. COMPLAINT TRANSFERRED TO APPROPRIATE AUTHORITIES. 

266 EUROPEAN CITY GUIDE (E): Objection received by the ASAI (IRL), from an Irish consumer, to a direct mailing from Spain. The ad took the form of an invoice that offered the recipient the opportunity of inclusion in a European city guide. The complainant believed that the mailing was misleading because it gave the impression that the directory entries were free, and that it did not make clear that by signing and returning the form, the recipient would be committed to paying for an entry in the guide. ASAI referred the complaint to the AAP (E).
AAP informed ASAI that its Advertising Jury considered the ad to go beyond the sphere of advertising ethics, in that the objective of the brochure was not only to advertise a product, but also that it involved a specific contractual offer. The case therefore appeared to be one of contractual fraud. AAP referred the case to the Catalonian Director-General for Consumer Affairs, the competent authority in the Catalonian administration, as well as to the Prosecutor's Office of the High Court of Catalonia to open an investigation into a possible criminal case against the advertiser. COMPLAINT TRANSFERRED TO APPROPRIATE AUTHORITIES.  

304-305, 307-313, 326-337, 366, 373-377 EUROPEAN PRIZE GUILD (B): Case report contained in Euro Ad Alert. COMPLAINT TRANSFERRED TO APPROPRIATE AUTHORITIES.  

269, 279, 280-282, 286-9 SWISS LOTTERY/SLIMMING PRODUCT ADVERTISER (CH): Objection received by the ASA (UK), from eight UK consumers, to a direct mailing from a Swiss advertiser. The ad suggested that the recipient had won a large amount of money, and also offered a slimming product. The complainant believed the mailing was misleading in suggesting that a large prize had been won. ASA referred the complaint to the CSL (CH). CSL informed ASA that the complaint had been transferred to the Swiss Post Office, the Commercial Register authorities and to the Swiss Federal Office for Business and Employment for investigation.   COMPLAINT TRANSFERRED TO APPROPRIATE AUTHORITIES.  

275-6 SWISS LOTTERY/SLIMMING PRODUCT ADVERTISER 2 (CH): Objection received by the ASA (UK), from two UK consumers, to a direct mailing from a Swiss advertiser. The ad stated that the recipient had won a cash prize, and also offered a slimming product. The complainant believed that the slimming and health claims made in the mailing were misleading. A reply address was given to the Netherlands, whilst the terms and conditions stated that the offer was to be governed by Swiss law. ASA transferred the case to the CSL (CH), and to the SRC (NL) for information. CSL informed ASA that the complaint had been transferred to the Swiss Post Office, the Commercial Register authorities and to the Swiss Federal Office for Business and Employment for investigation. COMPLAINT TRANSFERRED TO APPROPRIATE AUTHORITIES.  

292-3 INTERNATIONAL CASH & MERCHANDISE GIVEAWAY (CAN): Objection received by the ASA (UK), from two UK consumers, to a direct mailing from Canada. The ad stated that the advertiser wanted to send the recipient a 'cash inclusive package', then stated that the package was 'cash & merchandise', which would be sent to the consumer upon receipt of a small sum of money to cover the cost of processing the package. The complainant believed that the mailing was misleading. ASA, through EASA referred the complaint to Advertising Standards Canada, who replied that it had in turn transferred the complaint to the Canadian Marketing Association to investigate further as the case to be closed. COMPLAINT TRANSFERRED TO APPROPRIATE AUTHORITIES.   

294 NEW MOTOR CAR GRANTS (NL): Objection received by the ASA (UK), from a UK consumer, to a direct mailing from a Canadian advertiser. The ad stated that the recipient had won a car and that as a bonus, if the recipient sent £9.97, there was also the chance of winning up to £20,000. ASA, through EASA, referred the complaint to Advertising Standards Canada, who replied that it had in turn transferred the complaint to the Canadian Marketing Association to investigate further as this was the body responsible for complaints concerning direct mail.  ASA informed EASA that as the matter was now outside the EASA membership's jurisdiction, it considered the case to be closed. COMPLAINT TRANSFERRED TO APPROPRIATE AUTHORITIES.  

300-1 SWISS INSTITUTE OF HEALTH (NL): Objection received by the ASA (UK), from two UK consumers, to a direct mailing from a Dutch advertiser. The ad stated that the recipient had won the "first ever £25 783 prize", and a confirmation of this could be had by calling a telephone number in the UK. The ad also offered a slimming product "The Fat Evaporator Patch System" which claimed to be able to "Melt Away 6 pounds of fat in only 2 days". The complainant believed that the ad was misleading. ASA referred the complaint to the SRC (NL). The SRC contacted the advertiser, who stated that the mailing was part of a test campaign that was no longer running as it was under investigation, and that in the future it would contact the ASA for copy advice. The fulfilment house also advised the SRC that the mailing had been withdrawn due to the consumer complaints that had been received. COMPLAINT UPHELD.  

303 CASH AWARD CENTRE (NL): Objection received by the ASA (UK), from a UK consumer, to a direct mailing from a German advertiser. The ad stated that the recipient should respond to the ad in order to confirm their identity, and that upon doing this the recipient would be eligible to receive specific sets of numbers, relating to the collection of funds estimated to be in excess of £3.6 million to £18 million. A one-off administrative processing fee of £12 + £2 express handling was also required. ASA referred the complaint to Zentrale (D), who, after preliminary investigation, transferred the case to the appropriate Police authorities. COMPLAINT TRANSFERRED TO APPROPRIATE AUTHORITIES. 

315 FRIEDRICH MUELLER (A): Objection received by the ASA (UK), from a UK consumer, to a direct mailing from an Austrian advertiser. The ad stated that the recipient had won a share of a £52 500 prize, whilst also offering a slimming product known as 'Dr Peterson's Foot Wonder'. The complainant objected that the ad implied that the recipient had won a large amount of money. Upon receiving the complaint, the ASA at first investigated the complaint as a domestic case, as the mailing appeared to have originated in the UK. However, The Royal Mail subsequently informed ASA that the advertiser was based in Austria. ASA referred the complaint to the ÖWR (A). The advertiser advised the ÖWR that he was prepared to amend the advertisement in line with whatever guidance might be given. ÖWR also referred the complaint to the Austrian Commerce Police for further investigation. COMPLAINT UPHELD.  

359 STAR SHOP (D): Objection received by the BVP (F), from a French consumer (via a consumer organisation), to a direct mailing from Germany featuring a lottery. The mailing stated that the recipient had won a sizeable cash sum. The complainant considered that this was misleading. BVP transferred the complaint to the DW (D), who in turn transferred the case to the Zentrale. The Zentrale contacted the advertiser, as well as passing the information to the Police authorities. The advertiser subsequently informed the BVP that it had ceased its mailings. COMPLAINT UPHELD. 

Offensive:

314 SMITHKLINE BEECHAM (UK): Objection received by the ASAI (IRL), from an Irish consumer, to an ad in a UK published magazine, OK. The ad was for the low-calorie branded drink, Lucozade and depicted a young woman on a beach wearing a bikini bottom and taking off her top whilst being watched by an older couple, with the wife attempting to block her husband's view. The complainant considered both the nudity and the voyeuristic theme in the ad to be highly offensive, exploitative and crude. ASAI referred the complaint to ASA (UK). The ASA considered that the ad was unlikely to cause serious or widespread offence, and that there were no grounds for investigation under the British Codes of Advertising and Sales Promotion. COMPLAINT NOT OF SUBSTANCE.   

Illegal:

299 EURO GLOBE (D): Objection received by the BVP (F), from a French consumer body, concerning a direct mailing from a German advertiser. The ad stated that the recipient was guaranteed to receive FF 50 000, or one of a number of other prizes, such as a TV or holiday vouchers. The complainant objected to the direct mailing as this type of offer was illegal in France. BVP referred the com-plaint to the DW (D). The DW responded that the mailing was not in breach of German self-regulatory codes, but as it believed that the ad could be in breech of German law the complaint was then for-warded to the Zentrale which then forwarded it to the Deutscher Schutzverband gegen Wirtschaftskriminalität (German Criminal Investigation Unit) for investigation under German criminal law. COMPLAINT TRANSFERRED TO APPROPRIATE AUTHORITIES.

Non-fulfilment:

302 BUNNY BUTT (DK): Complaint received by the ASA (UK), from a UK consumer. The complainant had responded to a to a direct mailing from a Danish advertiser, which featured pornographic videos. The consumer ordered two videos but received no goods. £34.98 was paid to the advertiser, together with a further £10 to cover the costs of sending a replacement parcel by special courier (the advertiser had previously written to say that the first parcel of goods had been intercepted by the UK Customs Authorities). The consumer requested a refund of the money. ASA referred the complaint to ReklameForum (DK). The ReklameForum wrote to the advertiser. As the ad included offers for entitled 'Japanese and German school-girls' and 'Teen Sex', ASA forwarded the material to the Obscene Publications division of the Metropolitan Police in London. After contact from ReklameForum, the advertiser subsequently sent a video to the consumer, but it was not the one that had been ordered, and the complainant still wanted a full refund. ReklameForum informed ASA that it had again written to the advertiser, suggesting that the matter might be settled through the complainant being at least offered a discount. The advertiser replied that he was unwilling to deal with the complaint any further, arguing that products had already been sent to the consumer. ASA appreciated that, under the circumstances, there was nothing further ReklameForum could do. CASE CLOSED. 

Unsolicited mail:

256 SWISS LOTTERY/SLIMMING PRODUCT ADVERTISER 3 (CH): Objection received by the ASA (UK), from a UK consumer, to a direct mailing from a Swiss advertiser. The ad featured a lottery, and also offered a slimming product. The complainant objected to the receipt of unsolicited mail. ASA referred the complaint to the CSL (CH). CSL informed ASA that the complaint had been transferred to the Swiss Post Office, the Commercial Register authorities and to the Swiss Federal Office for Business and Employment for investigation. COMPLAINT TRANSFERRED TO APPROPRIATE AUTHORITIES.  

281 SWISS LOTTERY/SLIMMING PRODUCT ADVERTISER 4 (CH): Objection received by the ASA (UK), from a UK consumers, to a direct mailing from a Swiss advertiser. The ad featured a lottery, and also offered a slimming product. The complainant objected to the receipt of unsolicited mail. The reply envelope showed an address in Belgium, and whilst ASA referred the complaint to the CSL (CH), it also requested any assistance that the JEP (B) could offer. CSL informed ASA that the complaint had been transferred to the Swiss Post Office, the Commercial Register authorities and to the Swiss Federal Office for Business and Employment for investigation. COMPLAINT TRANSFERRED TO APPROPRIATE AUTHORITIES.   

317-321, 340 APPLIANCE DEPOT WAREHOUSE (B): Case report contained in Euro Ad Alert. COMPLAINTS TRANSFERRED TO APPROPRIATE AUTHORITIES. CASES CLOSED