CAP Compliance

Sanctions

We have several sanctions to apply against advertisers that chose not to comply with the Code. The most commonly invoked sanction is the Ad Alert.

Ad Alerts

Ad Alerts are a quick and easy way of drawing the media’s attention to a problem advertiser. We circulate them, in confidence, to CAP members and to individuals responsible for accepting ads for publication. Ad Alerts can be either general or specific. Specific Ad Alerts relate to individual advertisers. General Ad Alerts relate to a general subject or a code policy change that results from an ASA adjudication and that the media knows about. As well as including a visual of the ad, Ad Alerts ask the media to consult the Copy Advice team before accepting ads from the advertiser named in the alert.

Click here for recent general Ad Alerts

Legal backstop

The ASA is recognised by the Office of Fair Trading (OFT) as the established means for regulating misleading and comparative ads in non-broadcast media in the UK. If, having failed to secure an advertiser’s agreement to co-operate with the self-regulatory system, the ASA can ask us to ask the OFT to consider taking action under the Control of Misleading Advertisements Regulations 1988 (as amended). The OFT can seek undertakings from a company that it will change its ads; it can also seek injunctions from the Court to prevent companies from making misleading claims in their ads. By referring them to the OFT, the ASA has successfully stopped several advertisers misleading the public.

Companies referred to the OFT

Sport Newspapers The ASA ruled that a front-page flash claiming: “Daily Sport 10p Today” was misleading because the offer referred to the paper’s 10p magazine and not the price of the newspaper (40p). After a referral, Sport Newspapers gave the OFT a signed assurance that future layouts and headings of the paper would not give a misleading impression about the price at which the paper could be bought.

Neath Mailing Services The company’s ads for a homeworking scheme implied respondents could earn money at home by filling and returning envelopes. In reality, the only way to make money was to recruit new agents to the scheme. The advertiser gave the Compliance team many assurances but continued to send the mailing. The OFT received a signed assurance from the company that it would no longer send the mailing.

Neath Mailing

Fones4Free The advertiser refused to stop calling flights “free” if they were subject to taxes and charges. The OFT sought, but did not receive, signed undertakings from the advertiser. Because the offer was removed from the advertisers’ website the OFT decided not to take the matter further at this stage. It told the advertiser that it would review its position if it receives evidence that Fones4Free has continued to breach CMARS and the Consumer Protection Act.

Visit the OFT website, www.oft.gov.uk.