Background
Summary of Council decision:
Eight issues were investigated, of which one was Not upheld and seven were Upheld.
Ad description
A double-page regional press ad, entitled "ASHBOURNE - YOUR TOWN - YOUR CHOICE" encouraged readers to write to their Council voicing their concern regarding the proposal to build new housing on the former Airfield in Ashbourne. Text stated "Derbyshire Dales District Council has recently published its 'Pre-Submission Draft Local Plan'. Having been strongly influenced by a well-organised lobbying campaign in support of the development on the former Airfield, the Council Members went against their officers' recommendations to support ASH3 and opted instead for ASH1 - the Airfield. But was this a wise decision? Was it based on true fact or misconception? WERE YOU TOLD THE TRUE FACTS? READ THIS AND MAKE UP YOUR OWN MIND". The ad then listed and discussed a number of claimed "misconceptions".
Under the heading "MISCONCEPTION 1: ASH1, THE AIRFIELD, IS A WORTHLESS, DERELICT BROWNFIELD SITE" text stated "At least that is what ASH AWARE would have you believe. To quote from a letter to the Council from Peter Fox, a leading campaigner - it is ‘a weed ridden derelict wasteland of concrete runways’. But is it really? We would earnestly ask you to go and look for yourself". Beneath a photo of the site, further text stated "Does this look like a weed-ridden wasteland to you? The truth is much of ASH1 is good quality, highly productive arable farmland. How can it legitimately be classed as 'brownfield'? Yes, the site is crossed by runways, but to describe the site as a whole as 'brownfield' and moreover to infer that it is dispensable and worthless is a travesty ... Contrary to what objectors have alleged in terms of agricultural value, the ASH1 Airfield site is actually much more valuable to the nation than ASH3, Leys Farm, which is only average quality grazing land. Much of ASH1 is highly productive arable farmland which successive governments have urged should be conserved wherever possible and should definitely be conserved in preference to grazing land".
Under the heading "MISCONCEPTION 5: DEVELOPMENT ON ASH3 WOULD CREATE FLOODING PROBLEMS" text stated "Letters to the Council reveal that this was a matter of real concern, but their fears are unfounded. Approximately half the total site area will remain undeveloped, including all the lower slopes. Any excess storm water run-off will be contained on site by two new balancing ponds ...".
Under the heading "MISCONCEPTION 8: THE NEW HOUSING WILL BE OCCUPIED MAINLY BY NEWCOMERS" text stated "In fact the Council anticipates that most of the new homes to be built in the Plan Period will be occupied by existing local residents ... Peter Banks has campaigned successfully in this newspaper against Greenfield site development. He lives on the Shires Estate, which itself was a Greenfield site development, built following the site's inclusion in the last Local Plan. Clearly he is quite happy to live on a former Greenfield site, but seemingly he wants to prevent others from having that same opportunity".
Text in the bottom right-hand corner of the ad, under the heading "IT'S YOUR CHOICE - YOUR LAST CHANCE USE YOUR VOTE - DON'T LEAVE IT TO SOMEONE ELSE" stated "One final point which readers may care to note is that much of the objection to ASH3 and the support for ASH1 came from residents of the Shires Estate. True there was much misinformation and misconception to confuse them, but it would be a sad day if a well organised Minority of NIMBY'S (NOT IN MY BACK YARD) were to dictate the future development pattern of Ashbourne as a whole".
Text at the top of both pages stated "ADVERTISEMENT FEATURE".
Issue
Six complainants, some of whom were supporters of Ash Aware, challenged whether:
1. the ad was misleading, because the advertiser was not identified; and
2. the text "ADVERTISMENT FEATURE" was prominent enough, because the ad appeared to be a news article.
3. One complainant challenged whether the claim "Having been strongly influenced by a well-organised lobbying campaign in support of development on the former Airfield, the Council Members went against their officers' recommendation to support ASH3 and opted instead for ASH1 - the Airfield" was misleading and could be substantiated, because she believed the shift in support was the result of a late submission from the owners of the Airfield which demonstrated that the development of the site could commence in five years;
4. Two complainants challenged whether the claim "How can it be legitimately classed as brownfield?" was misleading, because they believed there was a specific definition of a brownfield site, which was fulfilled by ASH1;
5. One complainant challenged whether the claim "MISCONCEPTION 5: DEVELOPMENT ON ASH3 WOULD CREATE FLOODING PROBLEMS" misleadingly implied that the local campaign had made a case against the development of ASH3 based on potential flooding, which was not the case;
6. One complainant challenged whether the claim "MISCONCEPTION 8: THE NEW HOUSING WILL BE OCCUPIED MAINLY BY NEWCOMERS" misleadingly implied that the local campaign had made a case against the development of ASH3 based on the fact the new houses would be purchased by newcomers to Ashbourne, which was not the case;
7. Two complainants, including Mr Banks, challenged whether the claim "Peter Banks has campaigned successfully ... against Greenfield site development ... Clearly he is quite happy to live on a former Greenfield site, but seemingly he wants to prevent others from having that same opportunity" was in breach of the Code, because they believed it was personally offensive to Mr Banks;
8. One complainant challenged whether to refer to the campaign against the development of ASH3 as a "Minority of NIMBY'S" was misleading, as she asserted that 90% of local residents supported the development of ASH1 in both Council and District Council polls.
Response
1. John Collins explained that he had written the ad on behalf of the owners of ASH3 to ensure that local residents were aware of exactly what was being proposed for the development of the site. He stated that the material was not originally intended to be an advertisement, but it had been presented as such because that was the only way the paper would accept the content word for word. He had wanted to reach the people of Ashbourne as a whole and therefore to publish the material as a newspaper ad was his only option.
Having never placed an ad before, John Collins said it hadn't occurred to him to state his name, but it was not his intention to mislead anyone and if he had known it was a requirement he would have included it. He had not sought to hide his identity and had wanted readers to know why he had written and placed the ad, hence he also wrote an accompanying letter which had been published on the letters page of the paper. However, the paper had taken the decision to print "name and address supplied" rather than print his name with that letter. He had not requested that they do so, but he believed they had removed his name to protect him from possible nuisance calls. He also noted that some of the letters of representation sent to the Council in the wake of his article, specifically referred to him by name as the author of the article and so those individuals clearly knew who he was. He also argued that anyone reading the ad would be aware that it had been written by, or on behalf of, persons who were opposed to residential development on ASH1 and in favour of development on ASH3. He therefore believed that having his name on the ad would not have enhanced a reader's understanding of the content. In addition, he argued that very few people reading the ad would have heard of him, and therefore the omission of his name was not misleading.
2. John Collins said he was guided by the newspaper which had inserted the wording "ADVERTISEMENT FEATURE" in bold above both pages of his submitted text. He said that the wording was larger than the standard text used in the body of the ad, and that it had been given the most prominent position at the top of the page. He also highlighted that his letter on the letters page made clear that the double-page spread was an advertisement.
3. John Collins acknowledged the complainant's point that the agents acting for the owners of ASH1 claimed that the development of the site could commence within five years, and the Committee might not have agreed to support ASH1 without that assurance. However, he still maintained that the Committee was "strongly influenced by a well-organised lobbying campaign" and highlighted that while the claim implied there was a direct relationship between the campaigning activities of Ash Aware and Council members' decision to elevate ASH1 as the preferred site for housing development in Ashbourne, it did not specifically state that it was the most important factor, or the only factor. Although it may have been the most important factor, John Collins said the ad did not make that claim, or preclude other influences. He said even if the complainant was correct and the primary reason for Council Members changing their recommendation was that house building could commence on ASH1 in five years, that still would not mean that the Committee was not strongly influenced by all the letters of support for ASH1 and the objections to all Greenfield site development received, or by the presence of so many members of Ash Aware at the relevant meetings.
John Collins argued that no one could provide written evidence to confirm or deny the supposition that the Committee had been "strongly influenced by a well-organised lobbying campaign" as Council minutes never included any actual debate or proceedings. However, John Collins asserted that he had previously worked for the District Council for over 20 years and in his experience it was very rare for the Committee to vote against the recommendations of their officers on Local Plan matters. He therefore had no doubt that Ash Aware's campaign was influential in the Council's decision, which was what he had claimed in the ad.
John Collins also provided an e-mail from an Officer in the Local Plan team in response to his query regarding why ASH3 had been demoted, in which the Officer stated that it appeared to be the result of concerns regarding the possible adverse environmental impact that the development might have had, and of alleged flooding problems on the site; concerns John Collins stated were raised by members of Ash Aware.
4. John Collins asserted that there were generally accepted definitions of brownfield land, although it was usually referred to as "Previously Developed Land" (PDL). He said it was important to understand that planning was not, and could never be, an exact science. However, he asserted that PDL was generally accepted to mean land that had previously been built on, i.e. where buildings had stood. That would normally include land covered by roadways and services, and could include all land within the site curtilage, but that that was not normally the case with sites like airfields, where the site curtilage included extensive areas where no development had ever taken place. Moreover, he stated that just because land had been PDL did not mean it would remain so forever and stated that in the open countryside PDL was frequently reclaimed for agriculture, meaning that the buildings or hard standings were taken away, or possibly buried at depth, and the land was restored as useable grazing or arable farm land. At that point it then ceased to be PDL in the accepted sense.
With regard to ASH1 specifically, John Collins highlighted that the site was in excess of 100 hectares and asserted that a relatively small amount of the site had been reclaimed and reverted to agriculture but that the vast majority of it had never been developed. He acknowledged that the site was traversed by concrete runways, but said all the land between was arable agricultural land. John Collins also highlighted that the ad itself included photos taken on the site and showed arable crops. Therefore, whilst he acknowledged that small pockets of the site were, as supporters of the development of ASH1 claimed, "a run-down, weed-ridden, broken concrete mess", the vast majority of the site did not fit that description and the ad sought to dispel that misconception
John Collins acknowledged that the Draft Local Plan referred to ASH1 as a brownfield site, however, he asserted that Local Plan documents were published for public comment and were subject to change before being eventually confirmed and adopted as Council policy. He stated that the most significant "test" of a Draft Plan's accuracy and suitability was the Examination in Public, which was in essence a public inquiry performed by an independent inspector appointed by the Secretary of State, who would assess the Plan, any objection to it, and issue a report of recommendations as to what changes should be made prior to adoption. John Collins stated his belief that when the inspection was carried out for the Council's Draft Local Plan in 2014 it would determine that only parts of ASH1 could be regarded as PDL.
In support of that assertion, John Collins highlighted the previous Inspector's Report on the Council's Draft Local Plan in 2005, which stated "In my view the site has largely assimilated into the surrounding landscape and its classification as pdl may be debateable". He also provided an Appeal Decision related to another potential development site in Ashbourne in which the Inspector described ASH1 as "at least in part ... previously developed".
John Collins also highlighted that the claim did not state "ASH1 The Airfield is a brownfield site", but instead quoted from Ash Aware's successful campaign: "MISCONCEPTION 1: ASH1 The Airfield is a worthless, derelict brownfield site".
5. John Collins stated that the ad made a balanced assessment of what he perceived to be key misconceptions, which in his view had prejudiced a fair and public assessment of ASH1 and ASH3. He acknowledged that a key component of the ad was his criticism of Ash Aware and what he believed to be their misleading campaign statements, but that that was not the only component. He asserted that the ad did not attribute the misconception regarding alleged flooding problems to Ash Aware's campaign, which was not a major feature of their campaign. John Collins stated, however, that, as demonstrated by letters written in response to the Council's Local Plan, some locals were concerned by the alleged flooding issue, in his view unnecessarily, and therefore he wished to address that point in the ad. He also asserted that, according to Council officers, the potential flooding issues on ASH3 was a significant reason cited by Members of the Planning Committee when advising that the site should no longer be recommended for development, and again highlighted his e-mail correspondence with a Council Officer.
6. John Collins acknowledged that "Misconception 8" was not a major point made by Ash Aware's campaign. However, he stressed that the ad only attributed misconceptions to Ash Aware's campaign where relevant, and that the ad did not state that all misconceptions were attributable to Ash Aware. Regardless of the source, he said the issue was clearly a concern to a number of residents and was mentioned in some individuals' responses to the Local Plan.Therefore, he thought it was an issue that needed to be addressed in the ad.
7. John Collins confirmed that he had not sought Mr Banks' permission to include his name in the ad as he was not aware to do so was a requirement. However, John Collins asserted that the ad merely stated, word for word, what Mr Banks had written publicly. John Collins stated that Mr Banks had written several letters to the paper, and made several representations to the Council objecting to Greenfield site development in Ashbourne, and instead supported, and urged others to support development solely on ASH1. He said all those letters and representations were in the public domain and easily accessible. He also highlighted that Mr Banks lived on an estate that had previously been a Greenfield site which had been developed approximately 10 to 15 years ago, having been allocated for housing in the last Local Plan. Therefore, he asserted that, logically, if Mr Banks' publicly stated aims were realised, the inevitable consequence was that it would prevent others from having the opportunity he had to purchase a newly-built home on a Greenfield site. He said the ad simply drew attention to what Mr Banks had repeatedly said publicly and the inference drawn was the irrefutable consequence of Mr Banks' campaign if successful.
8. John Collins pointed out that the claim stated that much, not all, of the objection to ASH3 came from residents of the Shires Estate, and it was those residents, not the Ash Aware campaign more generally who he had referred to as a "well organised Minority of NIMBY's". Therefore, as the Shires Estates residents represented a very small part of the population of Ashbourne as a whole he believed the claim was self-evidently true.
Assessment
1. Upheld
The ASA noted John Collins’s assertion that he had not intentionally concealed his identity and had chosen to submit an accompanying letter that had been published on the letters page of the paper, which stated that the author was someone who lived and worked in the Derbyshire Dales who had been motivated to place the ad to address some misconceptions regarding the development proposals. We understood, however, that the ad had been placed by John Collins on behalf of the owners of ASH3, who had a financial interest in which of the proposed sites in Ashbourne was designated for residential development, but that that had not been declared in either the ad or the letter. In addition, we considered that a number of individuals might not read the letters page and would not be aware of that additional information regarding the provenance of the ad.
We noted that the ad itself did not make it clear who the author was other than that they were strongly opposed to development on ASH1. We also noted that throughout the ad, John Collins referred to himself as "we", which again implied it had not been authored by an individual. We understood that some complainants had been confused by the origin of the ad and some reported readers believing it had been placed by numerous sources including a housing developer and a commercial planning consultancy. We considered that information regarding the author would inform how a consumer read and assessed the claims, and could influence their decision whether or not to, as instructed, write to the Derbyshire Dales Planning Office and voice their concern regarding the proposed development of ASH1. We considered readers would react very differently to the ad if they believed it was written by a group of concerned residents, for example, than if it was written by someone representing the owners of ASH3, with a commercial interest in the outcome of the Local Plan. We therefore considered that John Collins should have included information in the ad regarding the fact that he was acting on behalf of the owners of ASH3, and that, in the absence of such information, the ad was misleading.
On that point, the ad breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules
3.1
3.1
Marketing communications must not materially mislead or be likely to do so.
3.3
3.3
Marketing communications must not mislead the consumer by omitting material information. They must not mislead by hiding material information or presenting it in an unclear, unintelligible, ambiguous or untimely manner.
Material information is information that the consumer needs to make informed decisions in relation to a product. Whether the omission or presentation of material information is likely to mislead the consumer depends on the context, the medium and, if the medium of the marketing communication is constrained by time or space, the measures that the marketer takes to make that information available to the consumer by other means.
and
3.5
3.5
Marketing communications must not materially mislead by omitting the identity of the marketer.
Some marketing communications must include the marketer's identity and contact details. Marketing communications that fall under the Database Practice or Employment sections of the Code must comply with the more detailed rules in those sections.
Marketers should note the law requires marketers to identify themselves in some marketing communications. Marketers should take legal advice.
(Misleading advertising).
2. Upheld
We noted that the Code required advertisers to ensure that their marketing communications were "obviously identifiable as such". We noted that the newspaper had chosen to insert text stating "ADVERTISEMENT FEATURE" in bold at the top of each page in slightly larger font than that used for the main body of the ad. We considered, however, that when considered in relation to the size of the ad as a whole, and other text within the ad, that text was very small and a number of readers might not read it. Similarly, as set out above, we considered that a number of consumers would not read the letters page and so would not be aware of that further explanation regarding its author and their intentions. We considered that, as an advertiser, John Collins had a responsibility to design the ad in such a way to ensure that consumers understood it was an ad. We considered that the ad as a whole was presented as an article and that the content, including claims asserting the "facts" and challenging "misconceptions", meant it was not clear to readers whether the material was an ad or not. We therefore concluded that it was misleading.
On that point, the ad breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 2.1 2.1 Marketing communications must be obviously identifiable as such. and 2.4 2.4 Marketers and publishers must make clear that advertorials are marketing communications; for example, by heading them "advertisement feature". (Recognition of marketing communications).
3. Upheld
We noted John Collins’s comments. In particular we noted that the claim did not explicitly state that the campaign led by Ash Aware was the sole reason the Council chose to reverse their recommendation. We considered, however, that most readers would understand the claim to mean that there was a direct and causal relationship between the campaigning activities of Ash Aware and Council Members' decision to recommend ASH1 as the preferred site of development in the Local Plan, and that their efforts had been the most important factor informing that decision. We understood that Ash Aware had campaigned against the development of ASH3, and actively supported and encouraged others to support the development of ASH1, before the Council recommended development on ASH1. We also noted the e-mail correspondence between John Collins and a Council Officer, but understood it simply summarised the Officer's notes from the meetings, and stated that locals raised concerns regarding the "landscape impact" and possible flooding resulting from the development of ASH3. Therefore, we did not consider that document was conclusive regarding why Council members had changed their recommendation, and did not establish a link between Ash Aware and that decision. We considered that John Collins had not provided evidence to confirm that the main reason Council Members had changed their recommendation and demoted ASH3 was because of Ash Aware's campaigning efforts. Because of that, we concluded that the claim was misleading.
On that point, the ad breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1 3.1 Marketing communications must not materially mislead or be likely to do so. (Misleading advertising) and 3.7 3.7 Before distributing or submitting a marketing communication for publication, marketers must hold documentary evidence to prove claims that consumers are likely to regard as objective and that are capable of objective substantiation. The ASA may regard claims as misleading in the absence of adequate substantiation. (Substantiation).
4. Upheld
We noted that the Local Plan was a draft and was yet to be assessed by the Planning Inspectorate, and that, as with all Local Plans, it was conceivable that the Inspector might disagree with elements of the Plan, including the designation of the site, or the site in its entirety, as PDL. We also understood that ultimately, any disagreements regarding the designation of the site as PDL would need to be settled legally. We noted a number of claims in the ad including "WERE YOU TOLD THE TRUE FACTS? READ THIS AND MAKE UP YOUR OWN MIND", "MISCONCEPTION 1: ASH1, THE AIRFIELD, IS A WORTHLESS, DERELICT BROWNFIELD SITE", "How can it be legitimately classed as 'brownfield'?" and "... to describe the site as a whole as 'brownfield' and infer that it is dispensable and worthless is a travesty", and considered that most readers would understand them as objective statements regarding the fact the Council had incorrectly designated ASH1, in its entirety, as "brownfield". We understood, however, that any claims regarding the definitive status of the site as PDL, or PDL in part, could not be substantiated at the point the ad went to print, or in the foreseeable future. We therefore considered that the claims asserting that ASH1 was not, in its entirety, a brownfield site were misleading.
On that point, the ad breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1 3.1 Marketing communications must not materially mislead or be likely to do so. (Misleading advertising) and 3.7 3.7 Before distributing or submitting a marketing communication for publication, marketers must hold documentary evidence to prove claims that consumers are likely to regard as objective and that are capable of objective substantiation. The ASA may regard claims as misleading in the absence of adequate substantiation. (Substantiation).
5. Upheld
We noted that John Collins had acknowledged that the issue of potential flooding had not been a central argument put forward by Ash Aware when campaigning against the development of ASH3, and that he did not believe that the ad attributed the source of that misconception to them, but that, as letters of representation in response to the Council's initial recommendations showed and one Council Officer stated, it was a concern raised by some locals. We noted John Collins’s belief that the ad did not attribute the source "Misconception 5" to Ash Aware and the fact that the text under that section of the ad did not explicitly name Ash Aware. We considered the wider context in which the claim appeared, however, and noted a number of claims including "Having been strongly influenced by a well-organised lobbying campaign in support for development on the former Airfield, the Council Members went against their officers' recommendation ... and opted instead for ASH1 ... Was it based on true fact or misconception?" and "Under the banner Ash Aware, the lobbyists successfully campaigned against all Greenfield site development and urged people to vote for the so called 'brownfield' option ... But were the arguments based on fact or misconception?". We also noted that the ad listed a series of "Misconceptions" and Ash Aware were named in three of those eight misconceptions. We considered that most readers would believe that the ad was presented as a response to the issues and "Misconceptions" raised by Ash Aware throughout their campaign, rather than a discussion of the general issues and alleged "Misconceptions" that individuals opposed to the development of ASH3 had raised in response to the Council's consultation. We therefore considered that in the context of the ad the claims incorrectly presented the assertion that "development on ASH3 would create flooding problems" as part of Ash Aware campaign. In the absence of any evidence to show that the issue had been raised as a key part of Ash Aware's campaign, we concluded that the claim was misleading and in breach of the Code.
On that point, the ad breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1 3.1 Marketing communications must not materially mislead or be likely to do so. (Misleading advertising) and 3.7 3.7 Before distributing or submitting a marketing communication for publication, marketers must hold documentary evidence to prove claims that consumers are likely to regard as objective and that are capable of objective substantiation. The ASA may regard claims as misleading in the absence of adequate substantiation. (Substantiation).
6. Upheld
We understood that John Collins had not intended to attribute "Misconception 8" to Ash Aware, and believed that the ad did not do so. We also noted that the issue of "newcomers" had not been raised as a key issue in Ash Aware's campaign, but again, that responses to the Council's consultation demonstrated that it was a factor raised by a number of locals who believed too much new housing was being proposed for Ashbourne. As discussed in point 5 of the complaint, we considered that the overall impression of the ad was that the "misconceptions" were points that had been raised by Ash Aware as part of their campaign against the development of any Greenfield sites in the area, and that the aim of the ad was to rebut those points. We therefore considered that in the context of the ad, readers would understand the claim "Misconception 8: The new housing will be occupied mainly by newcomers", as presenting an issue raised by Ash Aware. Therefore, without any evidence to show that the issue of "newcomers" had been a key issue raised in Ash Aware's campaign, we concluded that the claim was misleading.
On that point, the ad breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1 3.1 Marketing communications must not materially mislead or be likely to do so. (Misleading advertising) and 3.7 3.7 Before distributing or submitting a marketing communication for publication, marketers must hold documentary evidence to prove claims that consumers are likely to regard as objective and that are capable of objective substantiation. The ASA may regard claims as misleading in the absence of adequate substantiation. (Substantiation).
7. Upheld
We noted that the Code stated that marketers should not refer to anyone in an adverse or offensive way without prior permission. We noted John Collins’s comments that the ad simply presented Mr Bank's views regarding the potential development of ASH3, and that those views had previously been voiced publicly or were available in the public domain. We noted, however, that the ad implied Mr Banks objected to the development of ASH3 solely because he wished to prevent others from having the opportunity to live on a newly developed site, as opposed to alternative reasons why he may have thought the site was unsuitable and preferred ASH1. We also considered that the tone used to refer to Mr Banks and his apparent objection to the development of ASH3, a greenfield site, was derogatory and presented Mr Banks in a negative light. We understood that Mr Banks had not given his permission to be named in the ad. Therefore, we considered that the explicit reference to Mr Banks and the claims alleging why he personally objected to the development of ASH3 were offensive and concluded they were in breach of the Code.
On that point, the ad breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rule
6.1
6.1
Marketers must not unfairly portray or refer to anyone in an adverse or offensive way unless that person has given the marketer written permission to allow it. Marketers are urged to obtain written permission before:
Prior permission might not be needed if the marketing communication contains nothing that is inconsistent with the position or views of the featured person.
(Privacy).
8. Not upheld
We considered that most consumers reading the ad would understand that the descriptor "NIMBY's" referred to those individuals who lived on the Shires Estate and objected to the development of ASH3. Because those individuals only represented a minority of the population of Ashbourne as a whole, we considered that the claim was not misleading.
On that point, we investigated the ad under CAP Code rules (Edition 12) 3.1 3.1 Marketing communications must not materially mislead or be likely to do so. (Misleading advertising) and 3.7 3.7 Before distributing or submitting a marketing communication for publication, marketers must hold documentary evidence to prove claims that consumers are likely to regard as objective and that are capable of objective substantiation. The ASA may regard claims as misleading in the absence of adequate substantiation. (Substantiation), but did not find it in breach.
Action
The ad must not appear again in its current form. We told John Collins to ensure his marketing communications were clearly identifiable as such in future, that he identified himself as an advertiser, and to ensure he held evidence to substantiate claims that readers would understand as objective. In addition, we told him to not refer to anyone in an adverse or offensive way without their permission to do so.
