Business Service - Advertising Standards Authority

The advertisers said that they operated a free public information and claims assessment service through a panel of qualified and regulated professionals across multiple disciplines, including solicitors, loss assessors, engineers, and environmental consultants. They said that the Irish Claims Board did not itself provide legal services, nor was it a firm of solicitors. They said that the initial assessment service was provided to the public free of charge.

The advertisers noted that the complainant referred to the statutory body as “the Injuries Resolution Board” which they said demonstrated that they could distinguish between that entity and their organisation, which was clearly identified in the advertisement as the “Irish Claims Board”. They said that the statutory body operated under the domain injuries.ie and was an agency of the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment. They said that the names, domains, branding, and functions of the two entities were materially different and that the word “Board” was ubiquitous in Irish commercial life and was used by private and public entities alike and could not be regarded as exclusively denoting a state body. They also said that the addition of “Irish” and “Claims” created a distinct composite name that did not replicate or closely resemble any element of the statutory body’s current or former names.

The advertisers said that the TikTok advertisement prominently displayed the Irish Claims Board’s own proprietary logo featuring the distinctive green “ICB” monogram. They said that it bore no resemblance to the branding of the Injuries Resolution Board (which uses entirely different visual elements). They said that their advertisement did not reproduce, imitate, or reference any trademark, trade name, logo, colour scheme, or other distinguishing mark associated with the statutory body. Accordingly, there was no exploitation or unfair use of the goodwill attached to any other entity under Section 4.35, and the marketing communication did not so closely resemble another as to mislead or cause confusion under Section 4.36.

They said that the advertisement displayed the Irish-language rendering “Bord Éilimh na hÉire” beneath the English name and said that the use of Irish-language trading names by private businesses was a well-established and culturally normalised practice in Ireland, extending across banking, insurance, retail, and professional services. They said that it was not a convention reserved for state bodies and said that their Irish-language name was simply a translation of “Irish Claims Board” and did not replicate or approximate the Irish-language name of the Injuries Resolution Board (“An Bord Réitigh Díobálacha”). They said that there was no basis for suggesting this created an impression of state affiliation.

The advertisers said that TikTok was a social media platform whose users were typically digitally literate and accustomed to commercial content from a wide range of businesses, including service providers. They said that TikTok content was clearly differentiated from government or official communications by the platform’s own visual grammar (profile handles, branding overlays, engagement metrics) and they said that the likely audience comprised adults who had sustained some form of loss and were seeking information, and such users would encounter the ICB profile name, logo, and branding which were all distinct from the Injuries Resolution Board, both before and during viewing.

The advertisers said that they provided an initial assessment free of charge and that users who engaged further were connected with a panel of regulated professionals, including solicitors who were individually bound by the Solicitors’ Advertising Regulations and their own Law Society obligations. They said that their service operated transparently, the website clearly identified them as a private entity, disclosed its address and explained the claims process, including the role of the statutory Injuries Resolution Board where applicable. They said that when viewed as a whole and in context, the advertisement clearly identified a private commercial service, made factually accurate claims, and did not create an impression that they were a state body or were affiliated with one. They said that the complaint appeared to rest on a subjective impression held by a single individual who, by their own description, were able to distinguish the Irish Claims Board from the statutory body.

Complaint upheld.

The Complaints Council considered the detail of the complaint and the advertisers’ response.

The Council noted the requirement of the Code that advertisers should not exploit the credulity, inexperience or lack of knowledge of consumers (S. 4.4).

The Council did not consider that the branding shown in the advertisement was likely to cause confusion amongst consumers. However, for consumers who were aware of the existence of a state body, but did not know its name, they considered that the statements in the advertisement such as “…. what is the best way to claim compensation in Ireland” and “the independent service that assesses compensation claims” had the potential to confuse such consumers, particularly with the web address of ‘claimsboard.ie’. In the circumstances, the Council considered that the advertisement could mislead some consumers and was in breach of Section 4.4 of the Code.

Action Required: The advertisement must not reappear in its current form.

Complaints Decisions

Sign up for Advertising Standards Authority updates