Latest decisions: gambling websites, OnDemand horror ads, and more.
31 January 2024
The following are the latest decisions from the ASA.
Settled Complaints: The advertiser has amended or removed the advertisement after receiving the complaint.
Complaint 23/164 Workride, Website, Settled
Complaint 23/303 Energy Medicine, Website, Settled
Complaint 23/309 Door Dash, Addressed Mail, Settled
Complaint 23/318 SuiteFiles, Linkedin, Settled
Upheld Complaints: The Complaints Board agreed with the complainant that the advertisement breached the Advertising Codes. The advertiser has been asked to remove or amend it.
Complaint 23/286 Brand Developers Row Shaper, Live Television, Upheld
Complaint 23/290 AWAP 23/002 New Zealand Lotteries Commission (Lotto NZ) v Jackpot City, Jackpotcity.net Billboard, Website, Radio and Television, Upheld in part
Complaint 23/307 Sony Pictures Thanksgiving, TVNZ+ (OnDemand) Television, Upheld in Part, Not Upheld in Part
Not Upheld Complaints: The Complaints Board found the ad did not breach the Advertising Codes in relation to the complainant’s concerns.
Complaint 23/314 McDonalds, Television, Not Upheld
No Further Action: The Chair of the Complaints Board reviewed the ad and the complaint, and ruled the issues raised are not a breach of the Advertising Codes.
Complaint 23/093 Foodstuffs NZ and TVNZ, Live Television, No Further Action
Complaint 23/156 Woolworths New Zealand Limited, On Demand, No Further Action
Complaint 23/180 Palestinian Solidarity Network Aotearoa, Print, No Further Action
Complaint 23/198 Acquisitions, Unaddressed Mail, No Further Action
Complaint 23/224 Caltex NZ, Television, No Further Action
Complaint 23/238 Caruso’s Natural Health, Live Television, No Further Action
Complaint 23/323 Foodstuffs NZ, New World, Live Television, No Further Action
Complaint 23/324 Electric Kiwi, Addressed Mail, No Further Action
Complaint 24/002 Latitude Homes, Live Television, No Further Action
Complaint 24/011 BurgerFuel, Radio, No Further Action
Decision Summaries
Each month we summarise two decisions from the above list
Jackpot City radio, television, and website ads breached Gambling Advertising Code
Complaint 23/290 AWAP 23/002 New Zealand Lotteries Commission (Lotto NZ) v Jackpot City, Jackpotcity.net Billboard, Website, Radio and Television, Upheld in part
The Complaints Adjudication Panel has ruled three JackpotCity.net advertisements breached the Gambling Advertising Code following a competitor complaint from Lotto New Zealand.
The complaint from Lotto NZ covered four types of advertising: website, radio, television and billboard. The complaint regarding the Jackpotcity.net website was Upheld in part. The Panel ruled the website itself fell within the definition of a Gambling Advertisement, had not been prepared or placed with a high standard of social responsibility to consumers and society and was likely to confuse or mislead consumers with regards to its nature.
The complaint regarding the Jackpotcity.net radio and television advertisements were also Upheld in part, with the Panel ruling these advertised the .net website, which in the same decision was ruled to be misleading. Therefore, the radio and television advertisements had not been prepared and placed with a high standard of social responsibility and were also likely to mislead consumers. The Panel also ruled the television advertisement was promoting the Jackpot City brand along with the specific .net website.
The Panel declined to adjudicate on the Jackpotcity.net billboard advertisement, noting the advertisement had already been adjudicated on by the Complaints Board. It was Upheld in part and the billboard advertisement had been removed.
The complaint was dealt with under the ASA’s Competitor Complaint Process, where a three-person, public majority panel is appointed from the Advertising Standards Complaints and Appeal Board members. Complaint adjudication includes a hearing with parties in attendance, in this case, representatives of the advertiser and the complainant. The hearing includes both written and oral submissions from all parties.
For more information on the Gambling Advertising Code, check out our Short & Sweet: Gambling Advertising Code video or view the full Code on our website.
OnDemand horror film ad breached Code when placed in G rated programme content
Complaint 23/307 Sony Pictures Thanksgiving, TVNZ+ (OnDemand) Television, Upheld in Part, Not Upheld in Part
The Sony Pictures OnDemand ad for the horror film Thanksgiving depicted scenes from the R18 rated film, including attacks on people using utensils as weapons.
Three Complainants were concerned the ad was inappropriately placed within content, and said the ad was graphic and disturbing, both for themselves and for family members.
The Advertiser, Sony Pictures, said it targeted an 18+ demographic and restricted the timing to between 9pm-5am to avoid delivering the advertisement to unsuitable audiences.
The Complaints Board agreed the ad had been placed appropriately to account holders in the 18-44 age range and had employed a range of safeguarding measures to help reach an appropriate audience. However, the Board unanimously agreed the advertisement had not been placed with a due sense of social responsibility in relation to screening during programmes with a G classification. The Complaints Board said a G rated programme such as Grand Designs came with the expectation that it was likely to be considered family viewing and there was a clear disconnect between the programme content and the horror movie advertisement.
The Complaints Board ruled the complaints were Upheld in Part, and not to be used again within G rated programming.
Our Quick Guide: Check It Before You Release It gives our top tips on releasing socially responsible advertising.
