The promotion of "crab claws" that did not contain any crab meat by Lidl, a juice diet that promised weight loss of 8lbs in three days and an offer by Eir that seemed too good to be true were among the ads to fall foul of the Advertising Standards Authority of Ireland (ASAI) in recent weeks.
Sixteen advertisements in total were found to have been in breach of the ASAI code in recent weeks.
One person complained about an ad in a Lidl brochure featuring a picture of a product sold under the name “Sol & Mar”. The product was advertised as “breaded crab claws”.
However, the complainant said that the product had an inedible shell and contained very little crab meat.
They said they believed the product consisted mainly of crab-flavoured surimi fish, so the ad was misleading.
Lidl said it “regretted that the description of the product in question had been inaccurate”.
Having carried out a review of the product and the packaging, they noted that their counterparts in the UK had included an inaccurate description of the product in the brochure.
The advertisers said that while the “claws” that were breaded were “crab claws”, the filling, as indicated by the complainant, “was not in fact crab”.
Lidl said it had taken steps to ensure their products are described accurately in the future.
The ASAI complaints committee noted the steps taken by Lidl to ensure that the advertising did not appear in the same format again and said that no further action was required.
Detox Juice
The ASAI also found that a Facebook ad from a company called Detox Juice was in breach of its code.
The ad said: “€49 for your three-day juice detox. Sale now on, yes that is 15X500ml bottles LOSE WEIGHT up to 8lbs and feel great. Delivered to your door or order on . . . Delivering all over Ireland.”
A complainant objected to the implication that up to 8lbs in weight could be lost in three days.
The advertisers failed to respond to the complaint, so it was automatically upheld by the ASAI.
The ASAI complaints committee expressed their concern at the advertisers’ failure to respond in the matter and noted that weight loss of 8lbs in three days was not compatible with good medical or nutritional practice.
Interflora
Floral company Interflora was rapped over the knuckles by the authority after failing to make a delivery for a customer who wanted to send flowers to his mother on Mother's Day.
The complaint was lodged because the Interflora website had said: “We’re still taking orders. Order your Mother’s Day flowers before 4pm for delivery tomorrow.”
The complainant said that he placed an order by telephone at 12.45pm on the day before Mother’s Day.
However, having spent time placing it, he was informed that due to the volume of business Interflora had received, it would not be able to deliver his order until the day after Mother’s Day.
He said that he had been misled by the advertising on the website.
Interflora apologised for what had happened and said their terms and conditions referenced the fact that “at peak times, the same day, am/pm and three-hour delivery services may not be available in all areas”.
They said they had since added this disclaimer on their delivery information page.
The ASAI complaints committee said the disclaimer should have been stated in the banner advertisement.
Eir
Eir was found to be in breach of the ASAI code after complaints that some of its television advertising was misleading, on the grounds that an advertised price of €30 a month for services was an introductory price for 12 months only.
The complainants said the advertisement had not made it clear that the price would increase to €92 per month after 12 months and that the contract in question was for 24 months.
In its defence, Eir said the ad had clearly stated in the terms and conditions that the promotional offer of €30 a month was for the first 12 months and that the price would increase to €92 a month for the remaining 12 months of the contract.
They said that the message was in the text at the bottom of the screen.
In response, the ASAI said the terms and conditions defence was insufficient in this case and the complaint was upheld.
