Who: The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) and Surfshark B.V. t/a Surfshark
Where: United Kingdom
When: 18 January 2023
Law stated as at: 9 February 2023
What happened:
There was an embedded paid-for ad in a YouTube video which appeared on the TomSka & Friends YouTube channel for Surfshark’s Virtual Private Network (VPN) service. The ad featured a sketch by two presenters, “TomSka” and “Eddie”, discussing Surfshark’s VPN. Within the sketch, there were several scenes in which acts of violence or implied violence were depicted. These included TomSka becoming increasingly frustrated and smashing a glass over Eddie’s head, with the latter then shown with a blood-like substance on his face and whimpering. TomSka later became angry again and screamed in Eddie’s face, before the video abruptly cut to a static screen and sound, before showing TomSka with a blood-like substance on his face, hands and shirt, and sitting alongside an empty chair with the sound of flies.
Additionally, the video in which the ad appeared, began with an on-screen text disclaimer which appeared for two seconds. It stated “SUGGESTED AGE RATING 12+”, with a list including “STRONG LANGUAGE”, “BLOOD AND VIOLENCE”, “RECKLESS IMITABLE BEHAVIOUR” and stated “THE FOLLOWING IS NOT SUITABLE FOR CHILDREN”.
A complainant, who believed the ad was excessively violent, challenged whether it caused unjustifiable distress and was irresponsible and had been irresponsibly targeted.
The UK Code of Non-Broadcast Advertising and Direct & Promotional Marketing (CAP Code) states that marketing communications must be prepared with a sense of responsibility to consumers and must not cause fear or distress without justifiable reason.
Surfshark provided a detailed response to the complaint. As part of this, it said that the advert did not cause distress as it was designed for adults who would understand the cinematic and satirical presentation of the film and there was a clear disclaimer at the beginning of the advert. In addition, Surfshark said that the ad had been targeted only to adults and that was demonstrated by the channel’s YouTube statistics (which indicated that 93% of the audience were adults).
The ASA acknowledged that the intention was to be humorous and satirical and that there were slapstick elements to the ad. However, there were two specific scenes that appeared to portray genuine aggression and notable displays of violence or implied violence. The first was the smashing of the glass on Eddie’s head, an act of serious violence which could lead to serious injury if it occurred in real life. The second was the scene in which TomSka screamed at Eddie and then cut to a static screen, which was considered to imply that another act of significant violence had taken place. The ASA considered that the nature of those scenes and the level of violence, particularly the glass being smashed over a person’s head, were not justified.
The ASA also noted that the violent scenes were not consistent with the nature of the content in the video in which the ad was embedded. This was humorous and without any violent or threatening content, which only emphasises that the content of the ad was likely to be jarring and unexpected to viewers.
The video did not appear to be directed at children, and evidence provided suggested viewers of the video and the YouTube channel were predominantly adults. However, the ASA considered that the content displayed in particular scenes was unlikely to be suitable for children aged 12 years and over or even a general adult audience.
On balance, the ASA concluded that the ad irresponsibly featured scenes with an unjustifiable level of violence and was likely to cause distress to viewers. The ad was therefore irresponsibly targeted on YouTube as it was unsuitable for delivery to a general audience, and the ASA consequently upheld the complaints.
Why this matters:
This ruling serves as a warning to brands to take care when considering how to market their products. Care should be taken to prepare an ad responsibly, particularly when using violence or similar content within ads, to ensure it could not be seen as likely causing unjustified distress to viewers. Brands should also consider whether any violent content is suitable within the overall context of the content during which the advert is featured. The ruling shows that, even with prior warnings as to the nature of an ad’s content, its humorous intention and appropriate targeting to adult viewers, significant violence and implied violence in an ad can still be considered distressing to a general adult audience.
