Ad description
Three paid-for Facebook ads for Wish, an online retailer, seen in June 2020:
a. The first ad displayed an image of a gun and bullets with a sticker which stated “$16” and a “SHOP NOW” button below. The description above the image stated ““I love Wish! [two hearts emoji] Items are cheaper [money bag emoji] and you get store quality!!!”. Further text below stated “Download now to start shopping! [diamond ring emoji] [lipstick emoji] [dress emoji] [shoe emoji] [shirt emoji] [briefcase emoji] [camera emoji] [rugby ball emoji] [tennis racquet emoji].
b. The second ad displayed an image of a gun and bullets with a sticker which stated £5. The description above the image stated ““I love Wish! [two hearts emoji] Items are cheaper [money bag emoji] and you get store quality!!!”. Further text below stated “Download now to start shopping! [diamond ring emoji] [lipstick emoji] [dress emoji] [shoe emoji] [shirt emoji] [briefcase emoji] [camera emoji] [rugby ball emoji] [tennis racquet emoji].
c. The third ad displayed an image of knives with a “SHOP NOW” button below. The description above the image stated ““I love Wish! [two hearts emoji] Items are cheaper [money bag emoji] and you get store quality!!!”. Further text below stated “Download now to start shopping! [diamond ring emoji] [lipstick emoji] [dress emoji] [shoe emoji] [shirt emoji] [briefcase emoji] [camera emoji] [rugby ball emoji] [tennis racquet emoji].
Issue
The complainant, who had seen the ads when logged into a school’s Facebook page, challenged whether the ads had been irresponsibly targeted.Response
1. & 2. ContextLogic Inc t/a Wish.com confirmed that the ads were for novelty items. Wish.com stated that they were mousepads and keychains and were not ads for weapons. Wish.com believed that the complainant must have assumed they were for actual weapons or full-size replicas.
Wish.com stated that they did not view the ads as likely to offend or irresponsibly placed in a forum where children were present. Wish.com explained that those under 18 or over 65 were excluded from being targeted. They stated that they relied on the approach employed by the relevant partner. They confirmed that they typically ran ‘Dynamic’ ads on Facebook but could not speak to the targeting employed by Facebook. The link provided explained that dynamic ads promoted the products to people who had expressed interest on the advertiser’s website, app or elsewhere on the Internet.
Assessment
Upheld
The ASA noted that the ads were placed on Facebook and served to an unrestricted adult audience. We considered that the images in the ads (a) and (b) appeared to be of real or replica firearms which were illegal to purchase or own in the UK for all but a minority of highly specialised professional customers. We considered that ads which were, or appeared to be for, such products were not suitable for a general audience.
The image in ad (c) showed a range of swords and knives, some of which appeared to have static blades longer than three inches, meaning that in the UK they were illegal to sell to anyone under the age of 18 or be carried in public by people of any age. In addition one of the knives appeared to incorporate a knuckleduster which was banned completely in the UK. Again, we considered that ads which were, or appeared to be, for such products, if lawful, would need to be tightly restricted to an appropriate adult audience. Because the ads were served to a general audience and appeared to be for firearms and knives that were subject to significant legal restrictions, we concluded that the ads were irresponsible.
The ads breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rule 1.3 1.3 Marketing communications must be prepared with a sense of responsibility to consumers and to society. (Social responsibility).
Action
The ads must not appear again in the form complained of. We told ContextLogic Inc t/a Wish.com to ensure that they did not produce ads which appeared to direct ads for restricted firearms and knives to a general audience.
