In the past two weeks, we have seen the ASA: (i) remind businesses to be conscious of road safety when using motor vehicles in ads; (ii) emphasise the need to avoid offence, especially on the grounds of protected characteristics such as disability; (iii) highlight acceptable use of cartoons in alcohol ads; and (iv) uphold high standards regarding the substantiation of medical claims.

Wheelies aren't cool, says the ASA

What was complained about? A series of ads posted by a sports-fashion retail company were given the boot for containing images and videos of helmeted motorcyclists performing wheelies on public roads. The ads were challenged for (i) promoting "illegal and irresponsible road usage" and (ii) displaying a lack of protective gear. For the complainants, the classic "do not try this at home" warning would not convince aspiring bikers to hang up their helmets. 

What was the ruling? Upheld in part. (i) Upheld: Although the motorcyclists were filmed and photographed on closed public roads, in the ASA's view, this was not clearly communicated to consumers. Additionally, the warning message was insufficient as a deterrent, leading to the conclusion that the ads promoted the performance of dangerous stunts on public highways. (ii) Not Upheld. There is no legal requirement for motorcyclists to wear protective equipment other than a helmet – therefore, no additional gear was required. 

What are the ramifications? The ASA has reiterated that ads “must not condone or encourage unsafe or irresponsible driving”. If businesses do choose to include motor vehicle stunts in their ads, any content should not be filmed public roads (and this should be clear to the viewer) and clear warning signs should be displayed..

Play on words and images relating to blindness

What was complained about? The website for 247Blinds, a business selling window blinds, displayed an image of a person with paint splatters and starts over their eyes next to the text "Made-to-Measure Quality Blinds…WITHOUT HAVING YOUR EYES OUT! […] Blind envy starts here…". A severely sight impaired person complained, stating that the ad was likely to cause serious offence. 

What was the ruling? Upheld. The ASA acknowledged the play on words, and that “having your eyes out” could be understood as an extreme disbelief relating to a high price, but it considered the ad as a whole. It concluded that the text and image together made a reference to blindness and the joke made in relation to this was offensive, and belittled the disability.  

What are the ramifications? The ASA has consistently upheld high standards in respect of ads which can cause offence. This ruling further showcases the strict line the ASA draws for ads which could be seen to make light of protected characteristics such as age, disability or gender, amongst others. This autumn, the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024 will introduce new protections in respect of vulnerable consumers. The Act recognises that that vulnerability may be influenced by age, physical or mental health, credulity or circumstance. As such, advertisers will benefit from considering the contexts their audience watches ads in, in assessing whether the message, content or appeal of the ad could cause offence and thus also fall foul of the new legislation. 

Fantasy-themed ad deemed age-appropriate 

What was complained about? A video ad posted by a premium alcohol brand received a complaint that it appealed to individuals under 18. The video kicks off with a voiceover inviting the viewer to "follow your curiosity". A man – sat in an underwater pod and dressed in Victorian-style clothes – proceeds to follow a turquoise, top-hatted seahorse through a black and white cave. The man's fantastical navigator guides him to a colourful and music-filled scene of humans and sketched animals dancing and playing instruments. 

What was the ruling? Not Upheld.  Although the ASA accepted that the ad contained bright, mythical imagery, it concluded that the ad did not contain any obvious references to youth culture. The characters were mature in age and behaviour, the animals were "intricately drawn" and the music did not overtly appeal to young people.

What are the ramifications? While past ASA rulings have indicated a possible link between the use of music and/or drawings in ads and their appeal to under 18s, this ruling suggests that the ASA will adopt a more nuanced approach. Brightly coloured, surrealist ads will not automatically be infringing if the overall setting, music and characters target an adult audience. 

Bottled it - substantiating medical claims 

What was the complained about? A complainant challenged an Instagram ad for a new baby bottle feeder by an infant care company, based on the potentially misleading medical claims that had been made. The ad claimed that their product was “Expertly engineered to prevent colic, gas, and reflux in ways that’ve never been seen before” and would lead to “Even less gas… Even less stress… Even more sleep”.

What was the ruling? Upheld. The ASA acknowledged the company's response that the claim “colic prevention” (as opposed to “colic treatment”) could not be substantiated and would not be made going forth. Although the advertiser had provided evidence to substantiate their claim, namely a clinical trial which took place over 6 days,  with 51 parents self-recording results, which indicated a large decrease in colic symptoms, it was considered not enough for the claim to be substantiated. 

What are the ramifications? A claim made in an ad must not be misleading to viewers, and medical claims must be backed by sufficient relevant evidence. Whilst the infant care company had indeed made an effort to carry out a clinical trial, the ASA clarified that clinical tests used to substantiate medical claims should be peer-reviewed, a control group used, be carried out under rest conditions, have a larger test group as well as a longer testing period, and not rely on self-recorded results. Going forward, advertisers ought to be careful in their choice of words: whereas "preventing" colic was a bold statement which was misleading, "relieving" colic was a more accurate representation of the results the product could yield. 

Authored by: Hannah Potter, Alexia Meade, Filip Badina and Joo Won Han