recent rulings

* Below are the 20 most recent rulings of the ASA. To find out how to view all the rulings in the ASA database go to the ad library.

1. Vanish Power O2 / Unilever / 2014-1120F  (26 Aug 2014)
Unilever lodged a competitor complaint against a television commercial for Vanish Power O2. The commercial features a number of videos that appear to have been posted on a Vanish Tip Exchange page on Facebook in response to questions and queries about stain removal. The women in the videos share their tips on using Vanish to treat certain stains. The complainant submitted, inter alia, that the hypothetical reasonable person would likely take two major communications away from the commercial: • That adding Vanish to your washing powder will significantly increase the stain removal power of your wash for many and most stains; and • In particular, adding Vanish to your wash will significantly increase the stain removal in respect of red wine, mud, grass and coffee. The people in the commercial do not specify which brand of washing powder they are adding Vanish to, and the commercial shows both hand wash and machine wash applications of Vanish. Therefore, the reasonable consumer’s take out is that the claims in the commercial apply to whichever brand of washing powder they currently use.

2. Chicken Licken / A Baliram / 2014-1112F  (26 Aug 2014)
Mr Baliram lodged a consumer complaint against a television commercial for Chicken Licken that was broadcast during June 2014. The complainant submitted that the commercial is offensive as it contains depictions which are sacred to the Hindu religion. He outlined the significance of the Himalaya Mountain range for the Hindu religion, as well as the various poses and rituals as depicted in the commercial.

3. Plumber Midrand / T Mlotshwa / 2014-991F  (22 Aug 2014)
Mrs Mlotshwa lodged a consumer complaint against internet advertising appearing on the website The complainant submitted that the advertising was misleading as she was informed that a mandatory call out fee of R395 is charged after 15:00, because the advertiser views this as “after-hours”.

4. Aragan Secret Nail Treatment / B Espie / 2014 – 1094F  (20 Aug 2014)
Ms Espie lodged a consumer complaint against Homemark’s packaging of its “Aragan Secret Nail Treatment”. The complainant supplied the Directorate with a copy of what she submits as the back label of the product in question, which contains, inter alia, the claim “Made in Israel” The complainant submitted, in essence, that the list of ingredients on the label is misleading as the actual product only contains peroxide. The complainant further added that the product in question is not manufactured in Israel contrary to what the packaging claims.

5. Afrihost (Pty) Ltd Zest T1 / D Pearl / 2014 - 1166 F  (19 Aug 2014)
Mr Pearl lodged a consumer complaint against Afrihost for an email advertisement that was sent to existing clients during the first two weeks of June 2014. In essence, the complainant found the advertising misleading in that it suggests that there are only 1000 units of a Zest T1 phone available at the promotional price of R1999, and that clients have to act quickly if they want to get the offer. However, on the day that the phone was launched, the number of phones available at this price was suddenly increased to 4000. At the time of lodging the complaint, the phone was still being promoted on various websites at a reduced cost. The impression was created that the phone would cost R3600 once the launch offer was over. People were pressured and misled to take up the offer as quick as possible, but in reality, the offer continued for weeks.

next >>
advertising code | sponsorship code | complaints | consumer code | e-complaint | recent rulings | ad library | press release | annual report | statistics | international ties | general links | contact details | ad-alerts | Upcoming final appeals | ASA Precedent Manual | ASA Radio Show | code review | CAMS ADVERTISING CODE |