This report contains details of 60 cross-border complaints cases handled by the EASA’s cross-border complaints system and closed during the period January to July 2006.

54 of these to allegations of misleadingness, 2 cases related to allegations of offensiveness, and 4 to allegations of illegality.

The media concerned are direct mailings (53 cases), internet and emails (5 cases), and press (2 cases).

Offensiveness

1391 – 1392 The Newspaper Marketing Agency

Complaint (offensive) to the Irish SRO, ASAI, from an Irish consumer concerning an advertisement in a UK newspaper promoting newspapers as an effective medium for advertising.  The advertisement depicted a large black stiletto-heeled shoe; impaled on the metal heel was the body of a man and the heel was in a pool of blood.  The complainant objected that the advertisement condoned and trivialised violence, especially against men, and was offensive and sexist.  ASAI transferred the complaint to the UK SRO, ASA, under the cross-border procedure. The ASA considered that, although it featured an obviously unrealistic image, the advertisement trivialised and glamourised violence and was likely to cause widespread and serious offence to readers. It told the advertisers not to repeat the approach. 
Complaint upheld. Case closed.

Illegality

1382 Global Expres spol sro

Complaint (illegal contractual terms) to the German SRO, WBZ, from a German consumer concerning an internet site featuring paraphernalia for witchcraft.  The complaint found that the general business terms available on the website, www.hexa-sativa.org, did not comply with the German law concerning distance contracts.  The ZEN transferred the complaint to the Czech SRO, CRPR, under the cross-border procedure. Despite extensive investigation, CRPR was not able to locate the advertiser. CRPR asked for opinion the District Trade License Office and the Ministry of Trade and Industry. Both found breaches of the civil code and the consumer protection law. CRPR arbitration commitee upheld the complaint as the website breached art 3.1, 3.2 and 3.4 of the Part 1, Section 1 of the Czech advertising code (advertising shall not encourage illegality/ must be legal decent honest and truthful must not undermine the credibility of advertising).
Complaint upheld. Case closed.

1608 / 1611 to1624   Ushuaia Interlexus S.L.

Complaint (unsolicited fax) to the German SRO, WBZ, from numerous German companies, concerning an advertisement faxed from a Spanish company.  The advertisement promoted tools.  The recipients complained that the fax was unsolicited.  WBZ transferred the complaint to the Spanish SRO, Autocontrol, under the cross-border procedure. The advertiser was not registered in the Spanish corporate register, and could not be located by Autocontrol; the complaint was therefore transferred to the Spanish Data Protection Agency. 
Complaint transferred to appropriate authority. Case closed.

Misleadingness

1377 Euro Shopping

Complaint (misleading) to the French SRO, BVP, from a French consumer, concerning a direct mailing from the Netherlands featuring a lottery.  The complainant objected to the nature of the mailing, which appeared to be an announcement for the payment of pension, but after careful reading, turned out to be an invitation to participate in a lottery.  BVP also noted that the mailing, which was sent under the name 'Mieux Vivre', could be confused with the financial advice magazine 'Mieux Vivre Votre Argent', and transferred the complaint to the Dutch SRO, SRC, under the cross-border procedure. The SRC did not uphold the complaint, stating that the mailing clearly indicated that there was no obligation to place an order.
Complaint not upheld. Case closed.

1380 Advanced Laser Eye clinic

Complaint (misleading) to the UK SRO, ASA, from a UK company, concerning a leaflet featuring eye laser surgery.  The leaflet inserted in the UK newspaper Evening Herald, claimed "As the fastest growing clinic in Ireland we have the enviable record of correcting the most eyes with the lowest level of complications" and "We invest in the latest technology and treatment is carried out in all our clinics by our full time eye surgeons in Ireland".  The complainants asserted that it was impossible for the advertisers to have carried out the most eye treatments, as they themselves have been established longer than the advertisers - by eight years.  They also pointed out that there are no published figures on the number of complications arising from treatment for any clinics; the complainants said that they received numerous referrals from the advertisers' clinic because the advertisers' equipment was not as advanced as theirs, and that the advertisers used surgeons flown in for the day from mainland Europe and other countries, making the claim that they used “full-time surgeons in Ireland”, misleading.  ASA transferred the complaint to the Irish SRO, ASAI.

The ASAI evaluated the evidence provided by the advertiser, and found that it did not support the claim to have corrected most eyes.  The evidence furthermore showed that there was at least one clinic with more advanced technology, and that the surgeon was not a full-time employee in Ireland. Three other elements were raised but were not linked to the advertisement itself, and therefore not upheld. 
Complaint partly upheld. Case closed.

1383 William Pince Publishers

Complaint (misleading) to the UK SRO, ASA, from a UK consumer concerning a direct mailing from the Netherlands about genealogy services.  The complainant received a letter with an explanation of how William Pince had come across the complainant’s family history, and offered to write a family Chronicle for him at discount price.  By placing an order, the complainant would also receive a free copy of his family's coat of arms.  The complainant doubted the existence of such a coat of arms, and hence found the mailing misleading.  ASA transferred the complaint to the Dutch SRO, SRC, under the cross-border procedure.  SRC wrote to the advertiser informing him of the complaint. As a result the advertiser sought copy advice at the ASA amended its mailing to be in line with the code prior to adjudication. 
Complaint upheld. Case closed.

1387 Samantha

Complaint (misleading) to the UK SRO, ASA, from a UK consumer concerning a direct mailing from France featuring a lottery.  The mailing declared the recipient to be one of the winners of the lottery;  the complainant doubted the veracity of this claim.  The ASA transferred the complaint under the cross-border procedure to the French SRO, BVP. BVP found the mailing to be in breach of the French advertising code and wrote to the advertiser, asking him not to take the same approach in the future.
Complaint upheld. Case closed.

1397 O.R.G.G.

Complaint (misleading) to EASA from a UK consumer concerning a direct mailing from the Netherlands featuring a lottery.  The recipient was declared to be a winner of a lottery in which he never took part, and therefore doubted the veracity of the claims.  EASA transferred the complaint to the Dutch SRO, SRC, under the cross-border procedure. The SRC found the advertisement to be in breach of art. 7 (misleadingness) of the Duct advertising code, and requested the advertiser to refrain from using the same advertisement in the future. 
Complaint upheld. Case closed.

1552 Games for Fortune

Complaint (misleading) to EASA from a US consumer concerning an e-mail from the UK featuring a lottery.  The complainant was declared to be a winner of the lottery.  He doubted the veracity of the claims, and objected to the legality of communicating the results of lottery draws by e-mail.  EASA transferred the case to the UK SRO, ASA under the cross-border procedure.  ASA wrote to the complainant explaining that they were unable to pursue the case, because it was impossible to trace the advertiser.  Complaint not pursued. Case closed.

1561 Prime Media Services

Complaint (misleading) to the UK SRO, ASA, concerning a direct mailing from Ireland, featuring a lottery.  The mailing contained four cheques of money and claimed that they were guaranteed to win cash.  The complainant considered the mailing to be misleadingly in implying that she had won a prize.  ASA transferred the complaint to the Irish SRO, ASAI, under the cross-border procedure. ASAI forwarded the complaint to REGTEL, the regulator of Premium Rate Telephone Services. Case transferred to appropriate authorities. Case closed

1568 http://www.src/

Complaint (misleading) to the French SRO, BVP, concerning a direct mailing from the Netherlands featuring a lottery.  The complainant was declared as one of the winners of the lottery, while it was only an invitation to enter the draw, which the complainant found misleading.  BVP transferred the case to the Dutch SRO, SRC, under the cross-border procedure. SRC ruled that the advertisement was in breach art 7 (misleadingness) of the Dutch advertising code and art 2 and 3 sub of the code for sweepstakes (no conditions to the recipient of a sweepstake / false expectations).
Complaint upheld. Case closed.

1581 Lipo-slim laboratories

Complaint (misleading) to the UK SRO, ASA, from a UK consumer concerning a direct mailing from the Netherlands featuring a slimming product.  The advertisement claimed that if the product were attached to the sole of the foot overnight, it would "suck out fat while you sleep", at a rate of 6 pounds a week.  The complainant doubted the veracity of the claims, and noted that the mailing was addressed to people put on a strict diet and that the accompanying literature referred to the removal of toxins rather than fat.  ASA transferred the complaint to the Dutch SRO, SRC, under the cross-border procedure. The British Office of Fair Trading (OFT) also investigated the case and informed ASA that Lipo-Slim Laboratories would no longer market this product in the UK.
Case transferred to appropriate authority. Case closed.

1609 L'europeenne d'affectation des gains

Complaint (misleading) to the French SRO, BVP, from a French consumer, concerning a direct mail from the Netherlands featuring a lottery.  The mailing declared the complainant a winner of the lottery.  The complainant doubted the veracity of the claim.  BVP transferred the complaint to the Dutch SRO, SRC, under the cross-border procedure. SRC ruled that the advertisement was in breach art 7 (misleadingness) of the Dutch advertising code and art 2  (no requirement to the recipient of a sweepstake) of the Sweepstake code.
Complaint upheld. Case closed.

1628 Germanwings GmbH

Complaint (misleading) to the UK SRO, ASA, concerning an electronic newsletter from Germany featuring hotel discounts.  The e-newsletter advertised discount hotel rates, but when the complainant called to make reservations, all available rooms were already booked.  The complainant believed that no rooms were available when the offer was first made, and found the advertisement misleading.  The ASA transferred the complaint under the cross-border procedure to the German SRO, WBZ.  WBZ asked for a copy of the advertisement, which the complainant was unable to produce.  The WBZ was therefore not able to pursue the case.
Case not pursued. Case closed.

1629 Nova Channel AG

Complaint (Misleading) to the Canadian SRO, ASC, from a Canadian company concerning a direct mailing from Switzerland featuring a business directory.   The advertiser offered 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 was not clear that returning the signed form with approval of the company details automatically constituted an order. The complainant was consequently being asked for payment.  EASA transferred the complaint to the Swiss SRO, under the cross-border procedure. As the case had already been transferred to the authorities,the CSL informed the complainant that the Cantonal Police of Lucerne had opened proceedings.  Complaint transferred to appropriate authority. Case closed.

1630 Euromilliones Loteria International

Complaint (misleading) to the UK SRO, ASA, from UK consumer concerning a mailing from Spain featuring a lottery.  The mailing declared the complainant as a winner in a draw, but when the attempted obtain his prize, he did not receive anything and therefore doubted whether it was genuine.  The ASA transferred the complaint to the Spanish SRO, Autocontrol, under the cross-border procedure. Autocontrol could not trace the advertiser, which did not appear in the Spanish Corporate Register, and decided to transfer the case to the competent authorities in Spain on lotteries and gambling (Loterias y apuestas del estado). 
Complaint transferred to appropriate authority. Case closed.

1631 Grupo Bilbao Security Company

Complaint (misleading) to the Dutch SRO, SRC, from a Dutch consumer concerning a mailing from Spain featuring a lottery.  The mailing declared the complainant as a winner of the draw, but when he attempted to obtain his prize, he did not receive anything and doubted whether it was genuine.  The SRC transferred the complaint to the Spanish SRO, Autocontrol, under the cross-border procedure. Autocontrol could not trace the advertiser, which did not appear in the Spanish Corporate Register, and decided to transfer the case to the competent authorities in Spain on lotteries and gambling (Loterias y apuestas del estado). 
Complaint transferred to appropriate authority. Case closed.

1632 Oliveal

Complaint (misleading) to the UK SRO, ASA, from a UK consumer concerning a mailing from the Netherlands featuring a lottery.  The mailing declared the complainant as a winner of the draw, but when he attempted to obtain his prize, he did not receive anything amd therefore doubted whether it was genuine.  The ASA transferred the complaint to the Dutch SRO, SRC, under the cross-border procedure. SRC’s investigations revealed that the advertiser was not based at the address provided. The ASA had no other option but to close the case and inform the complainant.
Complaint not pursued. Case closed.

1634 Calypso t/a Michelle Alby

Complaint (misleading) to the UK SRO, ASA, from a UK consumer concerning a mailing from France, featuring clairvoyance services. The mailing offered the help of Michelle Alby to get the recipient out of a difficult situation.  The complainant doubted the veracity of the claims in the mailing, and did not want to receive such mailings in the future. ASA transferred the complaint to the French SRO, BVP, under the cross-border procedure. BVP informed the advertiser that he was in breach of the british advertising code and asked him not to use the same approach again.
Complaint upheld. Case closed.

1643 – 1644 - 1653 European City Guide

Complaints (Misleading) received from one Irish and two UK companies concerning a direct mailing from a Spanish company. The advertiser offered, for a fee, to place a subscriber’s company information in a 'European City guide' and invited the recipient to rectify details already printed on the form, and then to sign the response. The complainants believed that the mailing was misleading because even when a response indicated no interest, the advertiser had treated it an order. The complainant was consequently being asked for payment. Spanish regional competition authorities are already investigating the case.
Case transferred to appropriate authority. Case closed.

1646 NaturPlus Labs

Complaint (misleading) to the UK SRO, ASA concerning a direct mailing from France saying that the consumer had won a "digital player/recorder". The photo showed a DVD player, but the consumer received only a small recording device. The complainant found the mailing misleading. The ASA pointed out that the advertising was in breach of art 7.1 and 27.4 (misleadingness and disappointment) of the British advertising code. The ASA transferred the case to the BVP under the cross-border procedure. The BVP informed the advertiser and asked him not to use the same approach again.
Complaint upheld. Case closed.

1647 Germanwings GmbH

Complaint (misleading) to the UK SRO, ASA, from a UK consumer about an online offer for flights and hotel rooms presented as "unbeatable prices" and a "unique opportunity". The consumer then found out that the hotel rooms would have been cheaper if he had directly booked with the hotel and therefore found the ad misleading. As the advertiser being based in Germany, the UK SRO, ASA, transferred the complaint to the German SRO WBZ under the cross border procedure. Germanwings responded saying that by no means the ad was intended to indicate that the offer was unbeatable, but that consumers had the opportunity to be the first bookers, not excluding the possibility of cheaper prices. Germanwings argued that the German Law was not applicable as the ad was only directed to British consumers and the WBZ agreed. The advertiser agreed not to use the same approach again.
Complaint not pursued. Case closed.

1648 United Media

Complaint (misleading) to the UK SRO, ASA, from a UK consumer, concerning a direct mailing from the Czech Republic featuring an international business and trade database on internet and on CD ROM. The complainant considered the advertisement misleading since it was presented as an invoice and targeted at businesses, apparently in the hope that they would pay. ASA referred the case to the Czech SRO, CRPR.  The CRPR had previously received complaints about this advertisement, in the form of a mailing which had been transferred and reviewed by the District Trade License Office (DTLO).  The DTLO did not uphold the previous complaint, as the mailing explicitly stated that it is an offer. 
Complaint not upheld. Case closed.

1649 Expansys.com

Complaint (misleading) to the South African SRO ASASA, concerning a website selling electronic devices (Mp3 players, cellphones, PDAs..) using the South African flag as logo and a ".co.za" URL. The consumer found out that the products could not be shipped to South Africa. Consumers had to arrange collection in the UK, and therefore the consumer found the website misleading. The South African SRO transferred the complaint to the UK, where the server is hosted. The UK  SRO, ASA, informed the ASASA that their code does not cover claims made on company websites. The complainant has been informed of ASA’s decision.
Case not pursued. Case closed.

1651 European Weight Loss Centre

Complaint (misleading) from a UK consumer to the UK SRO, ASA, concerning a direct mailing for ‘green tea extract caps’, which claimed to make people drastically lose weight in a few weeks , and that the lost weight would never return. The consumer doubted the veracity of the claims. ASA transferred the complaint to the Dutch SRO SRC, under the cross border procedure. The SRC considered the mailing to be misleading as the advertiser had failed to substantiate the claims . The advertiser stopped the mailing and agreed to comply with the SRC code.
Complaint upheld. Case closed.

1652 Friedrich Mueller

Complaint (misleading) received by EASA from a UK consumer regarding Friedrich Mueller, Austria. The complainant asserted that his elderly mother had lost all her savings answering various scams from “Friedrich Mueller”, ranging from lotteries (promising money, cars, trips to Rome), astrological predictions, or clocks. EASA transferred the case to the UK SRO, ASA, and the Austrian SRO, OWR. The ASA decided to advise the UK Office of Fair Trading (OFT), who had already dealt with this company in the past and had agreed, through the advertisers’ legal representative, that they would clear copy prior to publication.
Case transferred to appropriate authority. Case closed.

1654 AFIBEL Sec International

Complaint (misleading) from a UK consumer regarding a direct mailing from France including a catalogue. The consumer judged the mailing insulting and misleading as it implied that he had previously had ordered the advertiser ‘s goods. The ASA commented that the advertisement appeared to be in breach of art. 3.1, 5.1 and 7.1 of the British advertising code. The case was transferred to the French SRO BVP, under the cross-border procedure. BVP informed the advertiser. The advertiser agreed not to use the same approach in the future.
Complaint upheld. Case closed.

1655 to 1658 / 1660 to 1673 / 1675 to 1679 / 1682 / 1683 / 1687 to 1689 Construct Data Publishers

Complaints (misleading) to EASA, from 11 companies in Israel, 10 in Sweden,  and  companies in Hungary,  Finland, Ireland, the UK, the USA, a Switzerland,  Hong Kong and  Australia concerning a direct mailing from Austria featuring a business guide.  The mailing invited the recipient company to confirm information about it.  However, signing the form automatically ordered an advertisement in the guide, and this fact was not made sufficiently clear.  The complainants found the advertisement to be misleading.  EASA transferred the complaint to the Austrian SRO, OWR, under the cross-border procedure.  OWR noted that the advertiser had persistently disregarded decisions against its advertising by the OWR, and therefore transferred the case to the appropriate authorities. 
Complaints transferred to appropriate authority. Case closed.