nvestigations[edit]
The ASA begins an investigation by contacting the advertiser for its views on the advertisement and, where appropriate, substantiation of claims made in it. The ASA may on occasion seek advice from industry experts on more complex issues.

Once the investigation is complete, a draft recommendation is sent to both the advertiser and the original complainant for any comments, with a request to keep this confidential until publication of the final report. The draft recommendation is then submitted to the independent Advertising Standards Authority Council, which adjudicates on ASA investigations. The ASA Council then discusses the complaint and the draft recommendation, and votes on whether to uphold the complaint or not. The adjudication in full is subsequently posted on the ASA's website, and made available to the press and the general public.

Appeals procedure[edit]
If there are grounds for an appeal against an adjudication, the case is reviewed by the Independent Reviewer.

A request for an independent review must be made within 21 days of the adjudication, and in writing direct to the independent reviewer, stating the grounds for appeal. Only the advertiser or the original complainant may request an appeal.

There are two grounds upon which an appeal can be lodged:

Additional evidence (if it is the advertiser that has brought additional evidence to bear, it must explain why the evidence was not available during the investigation)
Substantial flaw in either the ASA Council's adjudication or the investigation
The Independent Reviewer's decision as to whether or not to accept an appeal is final. Similarly, the ASA Council's adjudication on a reviewed case is also final.

Sanctions[edit]
Bad publicity[edit]
The ASA publishes weekly adjudications on its website every Wednesday.

Copy Advice[edit]
The ASA can order advertisers not to advertise unless the CAP Copy Advice team has seen the advertisement first and allowed the advertisement to go ahead. For example, the ASA told French Connection UK Ltd, which makes the FCUK branded clothing, to have all its advertisements pre-vetted by the CAP Copy Advice team.

CAP Compliance Team[edit]
The CAP Compliance Team is the enforcement arm of the ASA and CAP. The Compliance Team works to ensure that advertisers remove their problematic claims. The Compliance Team does not report back to complainants, nor does it publish the results of its work. However, part of its work does involve contacting media owners and telling them not to take any advertisements from problematic advertisers until the CAP Copy Advice team has pre-vetted the advertisements.

Office of Fair Trading[edit]
The Office of Fair Trading (OFT) has powers to fine companies and bring legal actions against them. If the ASA has trouble with a repeat offender, it can refer the matter to the OFT under the Control of Misleading Advertisements Regulations 1988.

Ofcom[edit]
The ASA can also refer problematic broadcast advertisers to Ofcom. Broadcasters have ultimate responsibility for advertisements shown on their channels and are therefore directly answerable to Ofcom, their licensing authority. Ofcom has powers to fine or revoke licences. For example, following more than 1,000 complaints to the ASA about the shopping channel Auction World.tv, the ASA referred the matter to Ofcom, which found the company in breach of its licence and fined it. Auction World.tv ended up in administration and went out of business.

Noteworthy rulings[edit]
Apple Inc.[edit]
Apple has been involved in two major rulings by the ASA; its claim to be selling "the world's fastest personal computer" in 2004, its Power Mac G5 system, was judged to be unsubstantiated. The complaints against two other claims made in advertising for the product were not upheld.[8] Later, in August 2008, an advertisement for the iPhone was banned because of false claims that it could access "all of the Internet"—due to its lack of support of major plug-ins such as Flash.[9]

Atheist Bus Campaign[edit]
Main article: Atheist Bus Campaign
On 21 January 2009 the ASA ruled that an advert campaign, stating "There is probably no God", did not breach the code. Religious groups including Christian Voice had complained that the Atheist Bus Campaign broke the advertising code on the grounds of substantiation and truthfulness. The ASA, which said that some of the complaints were that the advert was offensive and derogatory to people of faith, had to decide if God existed in order to rule on the complaint.

The ASA said that the British Humanist Association's campaign did not breach the advertising code or mislead consumers and that it therefore would not launch an investigation.

"The ASA council concluded that the ad was an expression of the advertiser's opinion and that the claims in it were not capable of objective substantiation," said the ASA. "Although the ASA acknowledges that the content of the ad would be at odds with the beliefs of many, it concluded that it was unlikely to mislead or to cause serious or widespread offence."[10][11]

Israel tourism advertisement[edit]
In July 2009 the ASA banned an Israeli tourism poster following complaints. Palestine Solidarity Campaign, Jews for Justice for Palestinians and 442 members of the public complained about how the map on the poster displayed the West Bank, Gaza Strip, and the Golan Heights as part of Israel. The Israeli tourism ministry responded to the criticism, saying the map was a "general, schematic tourism and travel information map" and was not meant to be a political statement.[12][13][14]

L'Oréal[edit]
L'Oréal's claims in a mascara advertisement featuring actress Penélope Cruz "exaggerated the effect that could be achieved by using the mascara on natural lashes".[15]

In 2011, two additional makeup ads for L'Oréal's were banned after British Liberal Democrat politician Jo Swinson lodged complaints about ads for foundation products made by L'Oréal-owned brands, Lancôme and Maybelline, featuring actress Julia Roberts and supermodel Christy Turlington. The 2011 complaints stated that L'Oréal ads were not representative of the results that the products can actually achieve. ASA confirmed that both ads were misleading, without the aid of before and after shots. It ruled that the two ads breached advertising standards code for exaggeration and for being misleading, and banned them from future publication.[16]

Brennan JB7 music player[edit]
In March 2011, 3GA's advertisements for a digital jukebox known as the Brennan JB7, which can import content from CDs and cassette tapes were found to be in violation of ASA guidelines for glorifying illegal acts, because it implied that it was acceptable to rip music, since "[it] repeatedly made reference to the benefits of the product being able to copy music but did not make clear that it was illegal to do so without the permission of the copyright owner".[17] 3GA denied the claims, stating that the copies of music stored on the device were intended to improve accessibility, and are incidental copies without economical significance. Making private copies of audio CDs was illegal under UK law.[18][19]

In January 2013, 3GA was also found to be in non-compliance in another set of ads for the JB7 which promoted an optional dock for attaching an MP3 player such as an iPod. The ASA found that their advertisements did not make clear that the dock was not included with the JB7, did not adequately mention the fact that it is only compatible with older iPod models (such as the iPod Classic) formatted for use on Windows, and could not be used with newer Apple devices such as the iPod touch and iPhone.[20]

Other rulings[edit]
In February 2012, the ASA ruled that the local Northampton furniture store Sofa King could not use a tagline stating that their prices were "Sofa King low" because it would be considered "likely to cause serious and widespread offense", due to its use of a pun based on a profanity. Sofa King's owner disputed these claims, saying that he had run print advertisements in a local newspaper containing the offending slogan for ten years without any complaints, and compared the situation to FCUK being banned from using their name in such a fashion.[21]
Nestlé’s claim that it markets infant formula “ethically and responsibly” was found to be unsupported in the face of evidence provided by the campaigning group Baby Milk Action.[22]
See also[edit]