Advertisment
The advertisement was a page on the advertisers’ website. It was an advertisement for an educational children’s toy COLORO which was a magnetic maze game in which a magnetic pen is used to guide coloured balls into the corresponding section illustrated by colourful paint cans. A mobile version of the site featured a picture of toy with a blue pen attachment and individual grooves for the coloured balls which was absent from the version of the toy with the yellow pen attachment.
An amended version, post complaint, featured pictures of the toy in a version that had anthropomorphic paint cans and a yellow pen attachment. However, a video on the site featured a version of the toy with a blue pen attachment and paint cans that did not have cartoon faces.
Complaint
The complainant believed the advertisement to be misleading as the product received by the complainant from the advertisers differed in what they believed to be significant ways from the illustrated product. The did not believe that the product received was of similar quality or design to what was pictured. The complainant also expected to receive the version with the blue pen attached but received the version with the yellow pen. The complainant said that the website had been updated to more accurately reflect what had been sent to customers.
Response
The advertisers said that they had carefully reviewed the evidence provided and had initiated an internal investigation. They said regarding the ‘size, graphics, and appearance’, their preliminary investigation suggested that there may have been a mix-up in the product batch sent to the customer. They said that they were liaising with the suppliers of the product regarding this issue. They said that their product team was working to identify any other discrepancies between the pictured product and that which is ultimately sent to a customer. They said that if such discrepancies were found they would update the website accordingly and offer compensation or replacements to affected parties.
On the issue of the website images having been updated, the advertisers said that this was done as part of a broader initiative to enhance transparency and promote accuracy across their website. They said that their intention was never to mislead. The advertisers were willing to cooperate further if necessary, however no update about their investigation was shared.
Conclusion
Complaint Upheld.
The Council noted that the advertised product differed from that received by the complainant. They also noted that some amends had been made to the depiction of the product on the website, but a video remained that incorrectly depicted the product. In the circumstances they considered the original advertising was likely to mislead consumers as was the video depicting the product. They therefore considered that the advertising was in breach of Code Sections 4.1 and 4.4.
Action Required
Any images or videos featuring the product must accurately reflect the product that is ultimately received by a customer.
