Business Services

Website
The advertisement on the advertisers’ website under the heading “Team” on the
homepage described the employees who worked there as:

“A trusted collective of genealogical and probate research experts”.

Photographs of the team were provided alongside their qualifications and a description of their role within the company.

Under the photograph of one staff member alongside their qualifications, they were described as “Recognised throughout Ireland and overseas as a leading figure in the field of international probate research”.

Under the frequently asked questions on the website underneath the heading:

“Is Erin International an Irish Company?”

The company described themselves as “Ireland’s leading probate research and
tracing firm”.

Issue 1
The complainant considered the statement that the named staff member was “a leading figure in the field of international probate research” to be misleading and queried whether there was evidence available to substantiate this claim.

Issue 2
The complainant asked if there was substantiation available for the claim that the company was a leading firm worldwide.

Issue 3
The complainant also queried the claim that the advertisers were “Ireland’s leading
probate research company” as they considered them to be relatively new to the market.

Issue 1
The advertisers’ said that what was stated on their website as per the complainant’s submitted screenshots was: “{Name} is recognised throughout Ireland and overseas as a leading figure in the field of international probate research”. They said they stood over this statement as being factual and not misleading.

Issue 2
The advertisers said they had never claimed to be a leading firm worldwide but as previously referenced they stood over the statement “{Name} is recognised throughout Ireland and overseas as a leading figure in the field of international probate research.”

Issue 3
The advertisers said that Erin International was undeniably the largest Irish firm of its kind, they employed more people than any other firm, and they stood over the claim that they were “Ireland’s leading probate research company”, they considered it to be a factual statement, and one that was not misleading. They said the staff member had been in the industry since 2015 and operated the current company since 2018.

Further Information:
The advertisers also provided the Executive with information on some of the companies which they worked with worldwide and the educational programmes which they ran.

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

Issue 1 – Complaint upheld
The Committee considered that the claim “a leading figure in the field of international probate research” was a superlative claim and one which would require substantiation. They noted the information provided to evidence the claim. They considered, however, that the evidence did not sufficiently substantiate this claim. As the claim had not been sufficiently substantiated, the Committee considered that it had the potential to mislead and was in breach of Code Sections 4.1, 4.4, 4.9 and 4.10 of the Code.

Issue 2 – Complaint not upheld
The Complaints Committee noted that the advertisement had not contained any claim that the company was a leading firm worldwide. The Committee did not uphold the complaint at issue 2.

Issue 3 – Complaint upheld
The Committee noted the information provided to evidence the claim. They considered, however, that the evidence did not sufficiently substantiate this claim that the advertisers were “Ireland’s leading probate research and tracing firm”. They did not consider that employee headcount, tenure, the date the organisation was established in Ireland, the companies which they worked with or the educational programmes which they provided were sufficient factors of themselves to substantiate a ‘leading’ company claim. As sufficient substantiation had not been provided to support the claim, or an indication given as to what the claim was being benchmarked against, the Committee concluded that it had the potential to mislead and was in breach of Sections 4.1, 4.4, 4.9 and 4.10 of the Code.

Action Required:
The advertising should not run in the same format again unless sufficient substantiation can be provided for the claims made at Issue 1 and Issue 3.