Advertising Standards Bureau - Review of Operations 2013 | Page 62

Advertising Claims Board
cases – 2013
During 2013 the Claims Board resolved two
cases, summarised below. Full reports of all cases
are available from the ASB website.

The complainant argued that those messages
were untrue and misleading, and that the TVC’s
disclaimer did not prevent those messages from
misleading consumers because:
•

i
t was not linked closely to the voiceover or
image in the second part of the TVC

Meat & Livestock Australia
Limited v Australian
Pork Limited

•

i
t was silent on relevant matters relating to
the comparison being made, and

•

i
t was not sufficiently prominent to be
effective in qualifying those general messages.

The complaint concerned a television
advertisement promoting the purchase and
consumption of pork using comparisons with
beef/red meat (TVC). The complainant alleged
that the TVC breached Sections 1.2 and 1.3 of
the AANA Code of Ethics on the basis that
it was misleading or deceptive and contained
a misrepresentation likely to cause damage to
a competitor.

In the advertiser’s view:

•

b
oth the specific message and general
message contended by the advertiser
were true

At issue was the characterisation of certain
representations made in the TVC and the
adequacy of the disclaimer used (the general
messages). A specific representation in the TVC
that the level of fat of the pork steak shown in
the TVC was half the level of fat in the beef
steak shown did not appear to be disputed by the
complainant as far as it applied to the ‘lean’ cuts
comparison referred to in the TVC’s disclaimer.

•

a
reasonable consumer would understand
that the second part of the TVC was distinct
from the first part, and did not infer that
the specific comparison of steaks would also
apply to cuts more generally, and

•

t
he disclaimer adequately qualified the claim
in a prominent and clear manner.

The complainant submitted that the TVC
conveyed the general messages that:
•

•

60

a
cut of pork has half the fat of a cut of red
meat regardless of the type of red meat, type
of cut and how and when it is trimmed, and
o
n average pork has half the fat of red meat
regardless of the type of red meat and how
and when it was trimmed.

•

t
he only general message communicated by
the TVC was that the average fat content of
trimmed lean pork cuts is half the average fat
content of trimmed lean red meat mix cuts

Both parties submitted evidence to support their
submissions, relying on differing nutritional data.
The Claims Board determined that the TVC
was misleading or deceptive or likely to mislead
or deceive in breach of Section 1.2 of the Code
of  Ethics.
The Board considered the advertiser’s
interpretation of the general message conveyed
by the TVC depended upon an acceptance that
consumers would read the disclaimer and not only

listen to the voiceover, and then understand the
disclaimer. However, the Board noted that there
would be a wide variety of relevant consumers,
with varying levels of gullibility, intelligence
and education. In the Board’s view a significant
number of the relevant class of consumer would
not read the disclaimer presented, and if they
did, would not go through the detailed analytical
thought process required.
The Board also found that the message in the first
part of the advertisement was very powerful and
may lead to a more general inference being drawn
by consumers about the comparative fat content
between all pork and red meat products.
In the Board’s view the disclaimer was not
sufficient to create the more complex general
message contended by the advertiser and
concluded that the TVC contained the general
messages contended by the complainant.
The Board noted that no-one contended the
general message advocated by the complainant
was true and there will be some cuts of red meat
which do not contain twice the fat of some cuts
of pork and accordingly the TVC is misleading or
deceptive or likely to mislead or deceive.
The Board also determined that it did not have
sufficient information to make a positive finding
in regard to the complainant’s claims that the
misrepresentation contained in the second part
of the TVC was likely to cause damage to the
business of beef producers contrary to Section 1.3
of the Code of Ethics.
Following the determination, the advertiser agreed
to modify the advertisement so that the messages
conveyed within it are simpler and advised it
had taken steps to withdraw the advertisement
at the earliest available opportunity pending
such modification.

Advertising Standards Bureau