This report contains details of 31 cross-border complaints cases handled by the EASA’s cross-border complaints system and closed during the period January - March 2007. 28 of these to allegations of misleadingness and 3 cases related to allegations of offensiveness. The media concerned are direct mail (27 cases), Internet (1 case) and TV (3 cases).

Offensiveness

1719     Menary’s Clothing

Complaint (offensive) from an Irish consumer to ASAI (Ireland), regarding a TV advertisement for clothes broadcast on a UK channel. The complainant considered the advertisement to be offensive.  It showed a woman, fully dressed, who proceeded to undress until she was naked and concealed only by the advertiser’s logo. ASAI transferred the complaint to the UK SRO, ASA, under the cross-border procedure. The ASA considered that the advertisement was unlikely to cause widespread offence and that there were no grounds for intervention under the Code. The complainant was informed of the decision.

Complaint not upheld.  Case closed.

1757     Pro Activ solutions cosmetics

Complaint (offensive) from an Irish consumer to ASAI (Ireland), about an advertisement for cosmetic product (acne skin care) seen on a UK children's TV channel. The consumer considered that advertising a cosmetic product to children was inappropriate. ASAI transferred the complaint to the UK SRO, the ASA, under the cross border procedure. The ASA investigated the complaint but concluded that it fell outside the remit of the Code as the objection appeared to relate to the nature of the product itself rather than to the advertisement.

Complaint not pursued.  Case closed.

1759      Walker’s crisps

Complaint (offensive) by an Irish consumer ASAI (Ireland), about an advertisement for crisps seen on a UK TV channel. The advertisement showed Ireland moving together with the UK towards Jamaica, to promote a new flavour of crisps. The complainant considered that Ireland was presented as "belonging" to Britain and felt offended by it.  ASAI transferred the complaint to the UK SRO ASA, under the cross border procedure. The complainant had also filed a complaint directly on the ASA website. ASA advised the complainant that it considered the advertisement unlikely to cause widespread offence.   

Complaint not upheld. Case closed.

Misleadingness

1745     Aer Lingus

Complaint (misleading) to ASAI (Ireland), from an Irish consumer about an offer seen on the top of an Internet page (Google). The offer advertised flights from Dublin to London for £1.00, without any qualification.  Upon  enquiry the consumer discovered that the flight was in fact charged at  £27.21 and therefore considered the advertisement misleading. As the media originated in the UK, the ASAI transferred the complaint to the ASA under the cross-border procedure.  Aer Lingus was contacted and reminded that the advertised flight price must include all non-optional taxes and charges. Aer Lingus wrote back the ASA and gave written assurance that all future adverts would be amended to include taxes and charges.

Complaint upheld. Case closed.

1739 – 1740 – 1742 – 1743 – 1744 – 1746 – 1747 – 1748 – 1749 – 1750 – 1751 – 1752 – 1753 – 1754 – 1755 – 1756 – 1762 – 1763 – 1764 – 1765 – 1766 – 1767 – 1768 – 1770 – 1771 – 1772 – 1773 – 1775 

Construct Data Publishers

27 complaints (misleading) to EASA, from 27 companies - 19 in Israel, 6 in Sweden, one in Finland and one in South Africa - concerning a direct mailing from Austria featuring a business guide.  The mailing invited the recipient company to confirm information about it by signing and returning a form.  However, signing the form automatically ordered an advertisement in the guide, and this fact was not made sufficiently clear. Respondents were subsequently pursued for payment.  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 this advertiser had persistently disregarded decisions against its advertising by the OWR, and therefore transferred the case to the appropriate authorities. 

Complaints transferred to appropriate authorities.  Case closed.