Back to the list

Report No. 27 – January to April 2003

This report contains details of 39 Cross-Border Complaints cases and 1 information exchanges handled by the EASA’s Cross-Border Complaint System and closed during the period January - April 2003.  33 of these cases relate to allegations of Misleadingness, and 7 to Offence. The media concerned are Direct Mail (34 cases), and Press (6 cases).

 764, 765, 784, 805, 809 ABC Club

 Complaints (misleading) to the UK SRO, ASA, from UK consumers concerning a direct mail from the Netherlands featuring a prize draw. The complainants objected that the mailing misleadingly implied that they had won a major cash prize, and that it might exploit the vulnerable.  ASA forwarded the complaints to the Dutch SRO, SRC, under the cross-border procedure.  On the basis of the clarification provided by the advertiser, the SRC found the advertisements to be in breach of the articles 3 (raising false expectations concerning the chances of winning), and 4.1 (Goods, services or sums of money that are intended as gifts for the majority of the recipients who respond to a sweepstake shall not be designated as prizes).  The advertiser was instructed not to use the same advertisement in the future.  Complaint upheld, case closed.

 790 Transglobal Commercial Services

 Complaint (misleading) to the UK SRO, ASA, from a UK consumer regarding a direct mailing from the Netherlands featuring a prize draw.  The complainant doubted the veracity of the claim that he had won a Volvo worth £23 465, which could be obtained by paying a handling fee of £19.95.  The case was transferred to the Dutch SRO, SRC, under the cross-border procedure, which found the advertisement to be in breach of the art. 7 (misleading) of the Dutch Advertising Code, and instructed the advertiser not to use it again.  Complaint upheld, case closed.

 796 Vintage Wines

 Complaint (misleading and fraudulent) to the Irish SRO, ASAI, from an Irish consumer concerning a direct mailing from the Netherlands featuring vintage wines.  The mailing suggested investing in vintage wines instead of investing in shares, as the return was considerably higher from wines because of the unstable situation on the stock-market.  The complainant ordered several cases of wine, not all of which he received.  The complainant made a series of unsuccessful attempts to get a clarification from the advertiser, and to be reimbursed for the wine not received.  He then complained to the ASAI, asking for their advice for which action to take.  The ASAI forwarded the complaint to the Dutch SRO, SRC, which having unsuccessfully tried to contact the advertiser, found the advertising to contravene of art. 7 (misleadingness) of the Dutch Advertising Code.  Complaint upheld, case closed.

 808 Direct Communications

 Complaint (misleading) to the UK SRO, ASA, from a UK consumer, concerning a direct mailing from the Netherlands featuring a prize draw.  The complainant objected that the mailing misleadingly implied that he had won a major cash prize.  He furthermore found the name of the advertiser unclear and questioned if it was registered in accordance to the data protection legislation.  He questioned the accuracy of the response deadline.  The ASA transferred the complaint to the Dutch SRO, SRC, under the cross-border procedure.  The investigation revealed that the company behind the address was actually Canadian.  The case was therefore passed to the Canadian SRO, ASC, which transferred it to Industry Canada, which is the Canadian authority in charge of the Competition Act. Complaint transferred to appropriate authority.  Case closed.

 811, 831 Top Direct

 Complaints (misleading) to the UK SRO, ASA, from UK consumers concerning a direct mailing from the Netherlands featuring a prize draw.  The complainants objected that the mailing stated that they had won a prize while in fact it offered only a chance to participate. ASA transferred the case to the Dutch SRO, SRC, which found that the mailing contravened art. 7 (misleadingness) of the Dutch Advertising Code, as well as art. 3a (misleadingness) and 3d (raising false expectations) of the Dutch Sweepstake Code.  SRC instructed the advertiser to discontinue the mailing.  Complaint upheld.  Case closed.

 814 Prestige Mailing

 Complaint (misleading) to the French SRO, BVP, from a French consumer regarding a direct mailing featuring a lottery from an advertiser based in the Netherlands. The complainant doubted the veracity of the claims that she was a winner in the lottery, and objected to being required to pay a handling fee to collect the prize.  The case was transferred to the Dutch SRO, SRC, under the cross-border procedure.  SRC found the advertisements to be in breach of art. 7 (misleadingness) of the Dutch Advertising Code, as well as arts. 2 (a winner cannot be asked to pay for the transfer of the prize) and 3 (a sweepstake shall create no false expectations concerning the chances of winning a prize) of the Code for Sweepstakes.  The advertiser was instructed not to use the same advertisement in the future.  Complaint upheld, case closed.

 816 Morgan Samuels Haggerty

 Complaint (misleading) to the UK SRO, ASA, from a UK consumer concerning a direct mailing from the Netherlands featuring a lottery. The complainant objected that the mailing misleadingly implied that he had won a major cash prize, and believed that the advertisement in fact offered nothing more than a chance to participate. ASA transferred the case to the Dutch SRO, SRC, under the cross-border procedure.  SRC found the advertisement to be in breach of art. 7 (misleadingness) of the Dutch Advertising Code.  The advertiser was instructed not to use the same advertisement in the future.  Complaint upheld, case closed.

 818 National Award Clearinghouse

 Complaint (misleading) to the UK SRO, ASA, from a UK consumer concerning a direct mailing from the Netherlands featuring a lottery. The complainant objected that the mailing suggested that she was the winner of the lottery, while in fact she was merely being invited to participate.  The case was transferred to the Dutch SRO, SRC, under the cross-border procedure.  SRC found the advertisement to be in breach of art. 7 (misleadingness) of the Dutch Advertising Code.  The SRC instructed the advertiser not to use the advertisement in the future.  Complaint upheld, case closed.

837 Nova Channel AG

 Complaint (misleading) received by European Advertising Standards Alliance, EASA, from an Italian company concerning a direct mailing from a Swiss company. The advertiser offered, for a fee, to place subscribers’ company information in a business directory and invited the company to verify the company details already printed on the form, and then to sign the response. The complainant believed that the mailing was misleading because it did not establish clearly that by returning the signed form with confirmation of the company details, constituted an order. The complainant had consequently been invoiced.  EASA forwarded the complaint to the Swiss SRO, CSL, under the cross-border procedure.  Meanwhile, an agreement was reached between the advertiser and the complainant.   Complaint not pursued, case closed.

 840 X-tra Vision

 Complaint (misleading) to the UK SRO, ASA, from a UK consumer, concerning an advertisement for DVDs in the Irish monthly magazine, 'xtra mag'.  Some of the DVDs mentioned at discounts in the brochure, turned out to be unavailable, and when the complainant contacted the advertiser, he was informed that the offer did not apply to the DVDs listed, and therefore considered the advertising misleading.   The ASA transferred the case to the Irish SRO, ASAI, under the cross-border procedure.  ASAI found the advertisement to be in breach of the arts. 12.7 (causing unnecessary disappointment), 12.11 (failure to respond within a reasonable period) and 12.18 (misleadingness) of the Irish Code of Sales Promotion Practice.  Complaint upheld, case closed.

841 Seasons

 Complaint (misleading) to the Irish SRO, ASAI, from an Irish consumer, regarding a direct mailing from the UK featuring free holidays.  The recipient was told that she had won free holidays for the rest of her life.  She could not recall having entered into any competition of this kind, and when she enquired, the advertiser was unable to tell her which competition she had won.  Moreover, the complainant discovered that she would have to pay an annual fee of £ 244 to get the prize, and she therefore considered advertisement misleading.  The ASAI transferred the complaint to the UK SRO, ASA, under the cross-border procedure.  ASA found the advertisement to contravene the arts. 3.1 (lack of documentary evidence), 7.1 (misleadingness), 17.1 (advertisers must make clear that stocks are limited), 17.2 (advertising products which are normally not available), 17.3 (advertiser should not suggest buying more expensive products than advertised), 39.1 (consumers should be informed of the conditions applying to receive gifts) of the British Code of Advertising Practice.  ASA instructed the advertiser to seek copy advice of the Compliance Advice Team, and asked the advertiser to contact the Compliance Advice Team when preparing future promotions.  Complaint upheld, case closed.

 854, 926, 930 Friedrich Mueller

 Complaints (misleading) to EASA, from Canadian, Swiss and French consumers regarding a direct mailing from Austria. The mailing offered "guaranteed gifts" of a car, a fitted kitchen, a cruise or a cheque for  £ 3 500, on payment of £ 35 to cover ‘shipping costs'. The complainants doubted whether they would get the promised gifts. EASA forwarded the complaints to the Austrian SRO, OWR, which reported that after being fined € 90 000 by an Austrian Court in November 2002, the advertiser had ceased trading. Following the verdict, EASA issued a second Euro Ad Alert about the advertiser.   OWR transferred the cases to the appropriate authority.  Complaint transferred to appropriate authority.  Case closed.

 856, 860 Eva du Maurier

 Complaint (misleading) received by the UK SRO, ASA, from a UK consumer regarding a direct mailing  from an advertiser based in Switzerland featuring clairvoyance. The mailing told the complainant that someone close to her was going to harm her in the near future, unless she purchased the services of the advertiser.  The complainant objected to the fact that the mailing might exploit the vulnerable, and considered it fraudulent.  The ASA found the mailing to be in breach of the British Codes of Advertising and Sales Promotion arts. 2.1 (decency and honesty), 2.2 (responsibility towards consumers), 6.1 (exploitation of inexperience of consumers) and 7.1 (misleadingness), and transferred it to the Swiss SRO, CSL, under the cross-border procedure.  CSL endorsed ASA’s view that the advertisement contravened the British Code of Advertising Practice*.  Furthermore, since the advertiser were unable  to provide CSL with the proof of existence of an individual named ‘Eva du Maurier',  they were instructed not to use the name in future advertisements.  Complaint upheld, case closed.

 *Note: The CBC system is based on control by the SRO in the country of origin of the media or, in the case of direct mail or Internet advertising, the country where the advertiser is located.  However, because Swiss law does not recognise the principle of country of origin control, in cross-border cases the CSL applies a rule which requires advertisements originating in Switzerland, but addressed to consumers elsewhere, to comply with the rules in the country of destination.  

 928, 954 European City Guide

 Complaints (misleading) to EASA from a Finnish and Cypriot company, concerning a direct mailing from the Spanish company European City Guide, featuring a business directory. The mailing stated that  recipients'  company information was to be published in a 'European City Guide' and invited them  to verify the details already printed on the form, and then to sign and return the  form. The complainants believed that the mailing was misleading because it failed to make clear that returning the signed form automatically constituted an order. The complainants were subsequently invoiced for payment.  The SROs referred the complaints to the Spanish SRO, Autocontrol.  European City Guide had previously attracted a significant number of complaints, and had been fined by a Catalan court for misleading advertising. Autocontrol therefore referred the complaint directly to the Catalan Directorate-General for Consumer Affairs, which passed them to the Catalan court.  In November 2002 the Court found the advertiser to be guilty of misleading advertising, and imposed a fine of € 27 000.  EASA subsequently released a new Euro Ad Alert warning about the activities of this advertiser.   Autocontrol transferred the cases to the Catalan Authorities.  Complaint transferred to appropriate authority, case closed.

 863 Australian International Lottery Agency

 Complaint (misleading) to the UK SRO, ASA, from a UK consumer concerning a direct mailing from Canada featuring lottery.  The advertisement described a new system to participate in lotteries world-wide, where the advertiser selected the best lotteries for the participants, guaranteeing substantial prizes.  The complainant doubted the veracity of the claims.  The ASA transferred the case to the Canadian SRO, ASC, under the cross-border procedure.  ASC transferred the case to the appropriate authority, Industry Canada, responsible for administering the Canadian Competition Act.  Case transferred to appropriate authority.  Case closed.

 927 Sunday Express

 Complaint (misleading) to the Irish SRO, ASAI, from an Irish consumer, concerning a promotion for the UK newspaper Sunday Express.  The advertisement promised a free CD for every new reader recruited.  However, the complainant objected that only in the small print it was made clear that the offer did not apply to readers in Ireland.  The ASAI transferred the case to ASA, under the cross-border procedure.  ASA wrote to the advertiser, who agreed to resolve the matter by providing the complainant with a free CD.  Complaint not pursued, case closed.

 935, 936 Angelina t/a Victor

 Complaints (misleading) to the UK SRO, ASA, from UK consumers concerning a direct mailing from Switzerland featuring clairvoyance. The complainants doubted whether the advertisers could substantiate the claims made in the mailing and objected that it exploited the vulnerable. ASA considered the mailing in breach of arts. 6.1 (exploitation of the lack of experience among consumers), 7.1 (misleadingness) and 9.1 (causing fear or distress) of the British Code of Advertising and Sales Promotion.  ASA referred the case to the Swiss SRO, CSL, which had already upheld previous complaints concerning breaches of the British Code, and had noted that the advertiser was not registered in Switzerland, although operating from there.   CSL therefore asked the Swiss postal services to close the advertiser’s PO Box, as well as referring the case to the State Secretariat for Economic Affairs for bringing Swiss industry into disrepute.  Complaint upheld and transferred to appropriate authority. Case closed.

 938 Who's Who in Catholic life

 Complaint (misleading) to the Irish SRO, ASAI, from an Irish consumer concerning an advertisement in the UK newspaper, the Universe, featuring a book entitled 'Who's who in Catholic life'.  The complainant considered the advertisement misleading, as she had expected the book to contain accounts of how faith had helped people in life, whereas she discovered after receiving the book that it only was a factual listing of people's achievements.  The ASAI transferred the complaint to the UK SRO, ASA, under the cross-border procedure.  On being advised of the complaint, the advertiser refunded the complainant’s money and the case was not pursued.  Case not pursued, case closed.

 939, 940, 941, 942 Dominion Entitlement

 Complaints (misleading) to the UK SRO, ASA, from UK consumers concerning a direct mailing from Canada featuring a lottery.  The complainants objected that the mailing misleadingly implied that they had won major prizes.  ASA transferred the complaint to the Canadian SRO, ASC, under the cross-border procedure.  ASC transferred the complaint to the appropriate authority, Industry Canada, which is the Canadian authority in charge of the Competition Act.  Complaint transferred to appropriate authority.  Case closed.

 846 Société Générale

 Complaint (offensive) directly to the Belgian SRO, JEP, from a UK consumer, concerning an advertisement for an international bank in a magazine.  The advertisement, in The Economist magazine, showed a woman walking up a flight of stairs.  She is wearing a long dress and is visible only from the waist down.  The headline states "Recognize the appeal of a successful international bank".  The complainant considered the advertisement to be offensive, demeaning to women, sexist, and to imply that women had no place in the world of banking as employees or clients.  JEP transferred the complaint to the UK SRO, ASA, under the cross-border procedure.  The ASA did not consider the advertisement likely to be generally interpreted as the complainant suggested, or likely to cause serious or widespread offence.  Complaint not upheld, case closed.

 849 Maja S.A

 Complaint (offensive) to the UK SRO, ASA, from a UK consumer concerning a direct mailing from Switzerland featuring clairvoyance.   The complainant objected that statements such as '(…) without my protection, you could (…) become a victim of a person close to you (…)' sought exploitation of fear.  ASA considered the advertisement to contravene the arts. 5.1 (causing serious or widespread offence) and 9.1 (causing fear or distress without good reason) and transferred the complaint to the Swiss SRO, CSL, under the cross-border procedure.  The CSL endorsed the ASA’s conclusions and requested the advertiser not to use this approach in future advertisements.  Complaint upheld, case closed.

 852 Arlimbow

 Complaint (offensive) to the UK SRO, ASA, from a UK consumer, concerning a direct mailing from Switzerland featuring sexual potency pills.  The advertisement contained explicit pictures, and was sent in an envelope with an explicit description of the product advertised.  The complainant found the advertisement offensive.  ASA found the advertisement to be in breach of the articles 5.1 (offensive), 50.1 (evidence of claims), 50.2 (encouragement of self-diagnosis), 50.4 (evidence related to efficiency and related side-effects), 50.5 (claim on being a 'natural' product), and 50.15 (accuracy of illustrations of effect or action should be accurate) of the British Code of Advertising and Sales Promotion.  The complaint was transferred to the Swiss SRO, CSL, under the cross-border procedure, which endorsed the ASA’s judgment that the advertising was in breach of the UK code.  Furthermore, it emerged that the advertiser was not registered in Switzerland as required by law.  The case was therefore transferred to the State Secretariat for Economic Affairs, with a request to take action against the advertiser.  Case upheld and transferred to appropriate authority, case closed.

857, 931 Haryana

 Complaints (offensive) to the UK SRO, ASA, from UK consumers concerning a direct mailing from Switzerland featuring clairvoyance. According to the mailing, the complainants would increase their chances in life by buying the services of the clairvoyant.  The mailing also emphasised that someone close to the complainants was about to harm them, and they could protect themselves by buying the advertised services.  The complainants considered the mailing to be offensive and threatening.  The ASA found the mailing to be in breach of the articles 2.1 (all advertisements should be legal, decent and honest), 2.2 (advertisements should be responsible towards consumers), 5.1 (offence), 6.1 (exploitation of the lack of experience among consumers) and 7.1 (misleadingness) of the British Code of Advertising and Sales Promotion, and transferred the case to the Swiss SRO, CSL, under the cross-border procedure.  CSL endorsed that the advertisement was in breach of the British Codes as outlined by the ASA.  It also noted the name Haryana was registered in the UK, and could not be used by the advertiser without further authorisation.  The case was therefore transferred to the State Secretariat of Economic Affairs for further action.  Complaint upheld, case transferred to appropriate authority.  Case closed.

 858 Lise and Rose c/o Esoprim

 Complaint (offensive) to the UK SRO, ASA, from a UK consumer concerning a direct mailing from Switzerland featuring clairvoyance. According to the mailing, the complainant would increase her chances in life by buying the services of the clairvoyant.  The mailing also emphasised that someone close to the complainant was about to harm her, and that by buying the advertised services, she could protect herself, and she therefore considered the mailing to be offensive and threatening.  The ASA found the mailing to be in breach of the articles 2.1 (advertisements should be legal, decent and honest), 2.2 (advertisements should be responsible towards consumers), 5.1 (offence), 6.1 (exploitation of the lack of experience among consumers) and 7.1 (misleadingness) of the British Code of Advertising and Sales Promotion, and transferred the case to the Swiss SRO, CSL, under the cross-border procedure.  CSL endorsed the ASA’s view that the advertisement contravened the above articles of the BCASP, and also decided to bring the case for the attention of the State Secretariat for Economic Affairs for possible action.  Complaint upheld, case closed and transferred to appropriate authority.

 949 Peugeot

 Complaint (offensive) to the Irish SRO, ASAI, from an Irish consumer concerning an advertisement in the UK newspaper, Sunday Times, for the Peugeot 307. The advertisement headlined: 'Agoraphobic Dilemma', offered a special discount for the Peugeot 307 to overcome the problem.  The complainant who had suffered from agoraphobia for years, found the advertisement highly offensive.  ASAI transferred the complaint to ASA under the cross-border procedure.  The ASA concluded that the advertisement was unlikely to cause serious or widespread offence.  Complaint not upheld, case closed.

Information Exchanges

929 Express Newspapers

 Complaint (misleading) to the UK SRO, ASA, from a UK consumer concerning an advertisement for Express Newspapers which appeared in Euro Weekly News.  The advertisement claimed that the Daily News Express was Europe's favourite national newspaper, which the complainant considered to be misleading, as he believed that the Daily Mail sold more copies.  The publisher of the Euro Weekly News is based in Spain, and consequently ASA transferred the complaint to the Spanish SRO, Autocontrol, under EASA's cross-border procedure.  Upon investigation, however, Autocontrol found that the newspaper was actually published in the UK, and consequently was the case hence not a cross-border one.  Case returned to ASA for resolution under domestic procedures.

Abbreviations:

SROs:

ASA = Advertising Standards Authority (UK)

ASAI = Advertising Standards Authority Ireland

ASASA = Advertising Standards Authority of South Africa

BVP = Bureau de Vérification de la Publicité (France)

CSL = Commission Suisse pour la Loyauté (Switzerland)

EASA = European Advertising Standards Alliance

ITC = Independent Television Commission (UK)

JEP = Jury d'Ethique Publicitaire/Jury voor Ethische Praktijken Inzake Reclame (Belgium)

OWR = Österreichischer Werberat (Austria)

SRC = Stichting Reclame Code (the Netherlands)

ZEN = Zentrale zur Bekämpfung unlauteren Wettbewerbs e.V. (Germany)

 

Codes:

BCASP = The British Codes of Advertising and Sales Promotion