|
|
|
* 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.
Sandton Lodge Rivonia / D Cox / 13713
(09 Mar 2010) |
In Sandton Lodge Rivonia / D Cox / 13713 (12 August 2009) matter the Directorate held that the respondent’s claims on several websites were unsubstantiated and misleading.
The advertising spans across many websites and attributes, inter alia, the following claims to this establishment:
- “…boutique hotel”
- “…perfect venue for conferencing, weddings and banqueting…”
- “…conference venues…boardrooms…”
- “…restaurant…”
- “…the bar…”
- “…a short drive or walk to the Country Club, Woodmead…”
The respondent was instructed to withdraw the claims with immediate effect within the deadlines stipulated in Clause 15.3 of the Procedural Guide and not to use the advertisement again in its current format in future.
In an email dated 10 September 2009, the respondent submitted that it has now been granted relevant rights to operate as a “hotel” in terms of the relevant conditions imposed by the City Council. However, in a ruling dated 14 January 2010 the Directorate held that the relevant permission has not yet been formally obtained as an appeal is still pending. The previous ruling remained binding and in effect.
Subsequent to the 14 January 2010 ruling, the complainant lodged a breach complaint against the respondent’s website advertising at www.johannesburg-venues.co.za/sandtonlodgerivonia/#description and www.booking.com. It was submitted that the respondent is still falsely advertising and it has not corrected its advertising. |
|
more...
|
|
| 2.
Aucor / R Raubenheimer / 15092
(08 Mar 2010) |
| Mr Raubenheimer lodged a consumer complaint against a print advertisement for Aucor which was featured in the Tonight supplement of The Star during January 2010.
The advertisement states, inter alia, the following:
“MEGA FURNITURE
AUCTION-NO RESERVE!
Thursday, 28 January @ 10h30 / 562 15 th Road, Midrand
R25,000,000 MILLION INVENTORY TO CLEAR!”
In essence, the complainant submitted that the claim to clear 25,000,000 million is impossible as that is approximately 10 times the GDP of South Africa. |
|
more...
|
|
| 3.
The Drain Surgeon / D Eichhorn / 15124
(08 Mar 2010) |
| Mr Eichhorn lodged a consumer complaint against advertising for The Drain Surgeon.
The advertising states, inter alia, the following:
“BLOCKED
DRAIN
SPECIAL
R370,00
Excl. vat…”
In essence, the complainant submitted that the advertisement quotes a price without VAT and that this is not clearly communicated. |
|
more...
|
|
| 4.
Sarita / Distell / 13058
(08 Mar 2010) |
| On 15 July 2009 the Advertising Industry Tribunal “(AIT)” found that the Sarita bottle labelling contravened Clause 2 and Clause 4.2.1 of Section II of the Code, as it created a misleading impression that the product was a cider, when in fact it was an ale.
In an addendum to the above ruling, issued on 20 July 2009, the respondent was ordered to withdraw the Sarita labelling within the deadlines stipulated in Clause 15.3 of the Procedural Guide, i.e. within three months from the date of the addendum.
On 8 February 2010, the complainant lodged a breach allegation against the Sarita bottle labelling. It was submitted that the respondent has effected minor changes in the packaging of Sarita. The wording “...apple ale expertly blended from a medley of fine apple varieties” has been amended to “...apple ale expertly blended with a medley of fine apple varieties”.
The complainant submitted that Sarita packaging is still misleading and that the minor change to the packaging does not address the ruling. The label, viewed as a whole, still creates an overwhelming impression that Sarita is made from apples. Furthermore, the respondent is acting mala fides by only changing the packaging and not the primary label of Sarita.
A copy of the packaging was attached to the breach allegation. |
|
more...
|
|
| 5.
All Call Repairs / CL Watt / 14941
(02 Mar 2010) |
| Mrs Watt lodged a consumer complaint against an advertisement that was featured in the Yellow Pages for All Call Repairs.
The advertisement states, inter alia, the following:
“24 HOUR
EMERGENCY
SERVICE
Repairs done on your premises…”
In essence, the complainant submitted that the advertisement was misleading as she was informed by the respondent that they do attend to emergencies 24 hours a day and 7 days a week, but do not work in the evenings. |
|
more...
|
|
|
|
|