New Decisions: Comparison Advertising, Dentists, Insurance and More
The following decisions were published on the ASA website on 31 October 2016:
- Complaint 16/307 Mahindra New Zealand – Upheld
- Complaint 16/322 Lumino Dentists – Not Upheld
- Complaint 16/327 Tower Insurance – No Grounds to Proceed
- Complaint 16/355 Waikato Health Clinic – Settled
- Complaint 16/358 GlaxoSmithKline NZ Ltd – No Grounds to Proceed
- Complaint 16/363 Ticketmaster NZ – No Grounds to Proceed
Insufficient Evidence for ‘Best Value’ Vehicle Claims
A website advertisement for the Mahindra XUV500 SUV showed an image of the Mahindra SUV, accompanied by text which describes different features of the vehicle. This was accompanied by a voiceover, part of which said ‘…The new age of Mahindra motoring brings the best value 7 seater SUV to the market…’
The Complainant said the claim that the Mahindra was ‘the best value 7 seater SUV’ was false. They said the claims were being made without any facts to back them up.
The Advertiser stated
“There simply are no diesel 7 seat SUVs with a lower recommended retail price currently on sale in New Zealand as the Mahindra XUV500. For this reason, we genuinely feel the “best value 7 seat SUV in New Zealand” remains very clearly demonstrable and unchallenged against any 7 seat SUV currently on sale in our market.”
The Complaints Board considered whether the advertisement contained anything which was likely to deceive or mislead the consumer and if it had been prepared with a due sense of social responsibility to consumers and to society.
The Complaints Board considered this case with reference to the Appeal Board decision in which the Board considered whether the Ssangyong Korando SUV could be described as ‘New Zealand’s best value mid-size SUV’.
The Complaints Board agreed the Advertiser had not provided sufficient evidence to substantiate the claim the Mahindra XUV500 SUV was the ‘best value 7 seater SUV’ on the market. Having considered all the information provided, the Complaints Board ruled the advertisement was in breach of Basic Principle 4 and Rule 2 of the Advertising Code of Ethics, and Principle 1 of the Code for Comparative Advertising.
Accordingly, the Complaints Board ruled to Uphold the complaint.
