The UK’s premium rate telephone line regulator has published an updated General Guidance Note on promoting premium rate services. “Freemium” advertising models feature as does charity fundraising. Ben Dunham reports.
In three recent ASA adjudications, against Timeshare Solutions, Hospital Medical Group and Essex Pamper Parties, customer testimonials were the subject of complaint upheld findings. Thomas Spanyol reports with a reminder of the rules that apply.
Artisan Home Improvements did loft conversions. The trouble was that the loft conversions on their website were Absolute Lofts’ handiwork. Absolute Lofts claimed damages. Sara McDiamond reports on how these were calculated and a bizarre coda to the case.
In the District Court of The Hague, history has been made in a comparative advertising case involving optical measuring instrument competitors i-Optics and Oculus. Kevin vant Klooster of Osborne Clarke Amsterdam reports.
A California-based online entertainment network has agreed to settle FTC charges that it engaged in deceptive advertising in You Tube videos endorsing an online game system. Would the same conduct here have also irked our regulators? Jamie Heatly reports.
Holiday booking site Lastminute.com tried to emphasise the savings on their website by striking out a standard hotel room price in favour of a lower price. However, was the basis of comparison accurate and fair? Thomas Spanyol reports.
The ASA has investigated the company behind the London Comedy Club for the third time in three years. Why didn’t it see the funny side this time? Tom McGinn reports.
An e-mail headline said “Everything under the sun. It’s all 40% off…excluding sale items.” Small print below said” Offer applies to select products as indicated [in store]” Surely this was not misleading? Stephen Groom and Anna Kehely report on the ASA’s finding.
Following complaints from small businesses, Ofcom investigated mis-selling practices involving alleged misrepresentations as to the likely cost and other implications of changing landline provider. Was compensation also ordered? Thomas Spanyol reports.
Not all the 50 footballers in advertising for Nike’s training program alongside the phrase “Improve your game with Nikefootball+” on a shoebox were sponsored by Nike. Some used shoes by Adidas, who sued. Stephan Bahner of OC Cologne reports.
A sales promotion shelf label said “Normal price £139.99 today £118.99” .A complaint suggested the higher price had only applied for a few days before the promotion, with £111.99 the price for some weeks beforehand. Fiona Schneider reports.
