The Australian Advertising Standards Bureau (ASB) has upheld complaints that Rusty Yak Ginger Ale's advertising, which urged viewers to “stop the ginger gene” from spreading by looking for bottles of the product hidden in six-packs of beer, was offensive to people with red hair. Carlton and United Breweries ran the television and internet ads for the product and told ASB the ads were intended to launch the product “in an affectionate, light-hearted and humorous way by linking the hair colour with [its] ‘crisp and zingy Rusty Yak gingery flavor.’” The Ad Standards Community Panel considered the ad in relation to its advertising code of ethics, which refers to discrimination on the basis of race, ethnicity and other personal characteristics. The panel said, “DNA can be considered to be related to ancestry and descent . . . in this context the reference to people with red hair falls within the definition of…
Tag Archives advertising
A consumer has filed a putative class action alleging that Brew Dr. Kombucha misleadingly advertises its products as containing “billions” of probiotic bacteria. Bazer v. Brew Dr. Kombucha, No. 2018-2943 (Ill. Chancery Ct., Cook Cty., filed March 5, 2018). The plaintiff asserts that he bought several bottles of kombucha in different flavors because he heard about the benefits of the beverage and the probiotic bacteria it purportedly contains. According to the complaint, tests showed that the product contained about 50,000 bacterial colonies rather than the "billions" advertised on the bottle’s label. Claiming violations of consumer-protection laws, breach of warranties and unjust enrichment, the plaintiff seeks class certification, disgorgement and attorney’s fees.
The U.K. Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) has upheld two challenges to television ads, one for Aldi Stores Ltd. and one for The Wrigley Co.'s Extra chewing gum, ruling that neither can be aired again. In the Aldi ad, "Kevin the Carrot,” an advertising mascot, was used to advertise alcohol beverages in a parody of “The Sixth Sense.” The ad began with Kevin saying, “I see dead parsnips,” and featured a voice-over explaining, “Kevin was feeling a little bit tense. He thought there were spirits. He had a sixth sense. As it turned out, his instincts were right. There were a few spirits that cold Christmas night.” Throughout the ad, various alcohol beverages appear. The ad was challenged on the grounds that the ad was likely to appeal to minors because the main character was a child's toy. Aldi argued that the ad was part of its 2017 holiday parody series…
Sanderson Farms Inc. lost a motion to dismiss false advertising claims brought by three advocacy organizations when a California federal court ruled that the claims are not preempted by either the Poultry Products Inspection Act (PPIA) or the Federal Meat Inspection Act (FMIA). Organic Consumers Ass’n v. Sanderson Farms Inc., No. 17-3592 (N.D. Cal., entered February 9, 2018). The groups alleged that Sanderson’s marketing materials—which asserted that the poultry was “100% Natural” with “no hidden ingredients” and that “100% natural means there’s only chicken in our chicken”—were misleading because of U.S. Department of Agriculture testing reportedly showing the presence of antibiotics, ketamine, pesticides and “other unnatural substance residues.” The court found that consumer-protection laws “are within the historic police powers resting with the states and are therefore subject to the presumption against preemption ... Consequently, they cannot be superseded by federal law or action unless it is the ‘clear and…
An Illinois federal court has dismissed a franchisee’s lawsuit alleging KFC wrongfully prevented him from advertising halal chicken, finding the franchise contract gave KFC control over advertising and promotional material. Lokhandwala v. KFC Corp., No. 17-5394 (N.D. Ill., entered January 23, 2018). Although the plaintiff alleged that KFC's prohibition on advertising dietary claims contradicted the earlier representations KFC had made to him, the court found that the franchise agreement gave KFC express power to change its advertising policies. In particular, the contract stated that “[n]o failure, forbearance, neglect or delay of any kind or extent on the part of KFC in connection” with enforcing and exercising its rights “shall affect or diminish KFC’s right to strictly enforce . . . this Agreement at any time.” The court ruled that given the contract’s “unambiguous language on advertising” as well as its integration clause, it would not consider extrinsic evidence of KFC’s…
After reviewing an ad for Subway’s “Fresh Fit for Kid’s Meal” featuring premium toys and offering a sweepstakes for a tablet, the Children’s Advertising Review Unit (CARU) has recommended that the restaurant chain clearly disclose material information and avoid sales pressure when advertising to children. CARU determined that while the contest rules were available on Subway’s website, the ad itself did not disclose that the contest was only open to those 18 and older, did not provide a free means of entry and did not disclose the odds of winning the tablet. CARU also found that the language “Hurry into Subway … otherwise you’ll miss out” could create undue sales pressure on children. CARU recommended that future ads contain audible disclosures understandable to children, and Subway agreed to take the recommendations into account.
The U.K. Advertising Standards Authority has upheld a challenge to a Heinz television ad for canned beans that claimed the beans contained similar levels of protein, fiber and fat as those in a protein shake. The ad showed a man drinking a beverage that he described as “supercharged with high fibre and minimal fat,” and although the beverage was not labeled or identified, ASA decided most consumers would conclude the man was drinking a protein shake. While the ad did not directly compare the nutritional benefits of beans to those of protein drinks and the ad’s nutritional claims for beans were substantiated, ASA ruled that Heinz made a nutrition claim prohibited by broadcast codes.
The Eleventh Circuit has denied a petition for rehearing in a putative class action against Chipotle Mexican Grill alleging false advertising related to genetically modified organisms (GMOs). Reilly v. Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc., No, 16-17461 (11th Cir., entered November 14, 2017). The appeals court previously denied the plaintiff’s appeal from the trial court’s entry of summary judgment. The plaintiff alleged that she stopped eating Chipotle's chicken burritos after learning from the company website that although the meat and dairy products it uses are not genetically modified, “most animal feed in the U.S. is genetically modified, which means that the meat and dairy served at Chipotle are likely to come from animals given at least some GMO feed.” She began eating at a different Mexican restaurant, where she paid more for a similar chicken burrito despite the restaurant not claiming its food was non-GMO. The district court ruled that the plaintiff…
The Beech-Nut Nutrition Co. has reportedly told the National Advertising Division (NAD) it will no longer use the terms “natural,” “sensitive” and “complete” nutrition or claim that its baby cereals have zero grams of sugar, were “formulated to be gentle on baby’s tummy,” and have “all the tastiness of oatmeal with smaller proteins that are gentler on your baby’s tummy.” Beech-Nut discontinued the ads for “unrelated business reasons” before they were challenged, so NAD will not review the claims on the merits.
New York City’s Metropolitan Transit Authority (MTA) board has passed a resolution banning all advertising for alcohol products over concerns that exposure to the ads “influences many young people to start drinking earlier and to drink more," which "leads to much higher public health and safety costs.” Although the primary purpose for MTA ads is to raise revenue, alcohol ads account for about $2.8 million annually, about 2 percent of the $144.8 million raised in 2016. Other cities that have instituted similar bans reportedly include Los Angeles, San Francisco, Detroit, San Diego and Baltimore; Chicago and Atlanta allow the ads, the board said, but “with restrictions that limit their exposure to young people.” The ban will take effect January 1, 2018, but MTA stopped contracting for additional advertising as of October 25, 2017.
