Dance app missteps with “free” subscription claim
ASA rules that a dance app using a money back model cannot be descried as “free”.
ASA rules that a dance app using a money back model cannot be descried as “free”.
Two recent ASA rulings have addressed the extent to which advertisers can reference ADHD when promoting consumer products.
The ASA ruled that a Gecko Play ad comparing gambling to eating pistachios trivialised gambling and encouraged socially irresponsible behaviour, in breach of the CAP Code.
The ASA ruled against The Pizza Company because its promotional packaging misled consumers into believing all products were eligible for a prize draw.
The ASA upheld complaints against Untamed Cat Food’s ad, ruling that claims about competitor meat content in cat food and cats’ nutritional needs were misleading and insufficiently substantiated.
The ASA has upheld complaints against an ad for an AI video app, rendering it irresponsible, harmful and likely to cause serious offence under the CAP Code.
The ASA upheld a complaint against Charmfay Shop’s online ad for a hooded jumper, finding that the claims and imagery had not been substantiated and were misleading.
The ASA upheld complaints against WiggyDog’s ad for a robot-dog toy, finding that claims and imagery exaggerated the product’s realism and functionality.
The ASA issues its first rulings clarifying the scope of the “less healthy” food advertising restrictions.
CAP’s enforcement notice and guidance note on loot box disclosure reinforce ASA rulings requiring mobile game publishers to disclose the presence of loot boxes and clearly signpost prize probabilities.
The ASA found that a Betway ad clearly depicted Sir Lewis Hamilton, a personality of strong appeal to under 18s, and that creative tweaks and platform targeting were not enough to avoid a breach of the “strong appeal” rules.
The ASA has upheld complaints against Kit & Kin’s green marketing for its nappy and wipes range, finding that “eco”, “sustainable” and “biodegradable” claims were absolute, unsubstantiated and gave a misleading impression of the products’ environmental impact.