Ad description
A product listing for a magnetic building blocks toy set, seen on Amazon.co.uk on 28 October 2024, included images of young children playing with the product without adult supervision. The product’s name included text which stated, “Learning & Development Building Blocks Toys Gift for 3-7 Year Old Boys Girls”. Text at the top of the listing stated, “Manufacturer Minimum Age (MONTHS) 3”. Text in the “About this item” section of the listing stated, “The magnetic blocks kits are come [sic] with different shapes.Kids [sic] can create kinds of [sic] 2D plane shapes or 3D geometric structures […] The product complies with CE standard, so our magnetic block is safer than others”.
Further down the listing, under the heading “Product Safety”, text stated, “Warning:To [sic] be used under the direct supervision of an adult […] Adult supervision recommended”. Beneath that, under the heading “Product information”, text stated, “Manufacturer recommended age 3 months and up”. A further product description near the bottom of the listing featured smaller text which stated, “Magnetic building blocks are the perfect gift for kids ages 3 and up […] Young children should be taken with the company [sic] of their parents to avoid accidental ingestion.”
The first image of the product featured in the listing showed a young child playing with the magnetic blocks without an adult present. Further images showed other children of various ages playing with the product, some alone, some with adults present. Some images contained symbols with the ages “0-3” in them, which were visible when the image was clicked on and expanded.
Issue
Which?, the consumer protection group, challenged whether the ad was irresponsible and harmful because it featured images of children seemingly under the age of 3 years old using the product.
Response
Plum Marketing believed it was appropriate for the listing’s images to show children using the product because it was a children’s toy. They said all children featured in the images were over three years old, and that the images displayed logos regarding the age suitability of the product. They believed the listing made clear that the product was intended for children aged three and over.
Plum Marketing said the product had been designed to ensure that it was a safe size for children to use, and that individual components could not be swallowed. They said the product complied with relevant EU safety standards, and provided a testing certificate to demonstrate that it had met requirements to carry the CE mark.
Plum Marketing said they took children’s safety seriously and understood their responsibility to produce safe products. They had received no negative feedback or complaints about the product from consumers. They said they would continue to ensure that their products met relevant safety standards in future.
Amazon said that the product had been sold by a third-party seller, who had determined the content and the claims made on the product listing page. While Amazon had not received any direct complaints about the ad, they said they had removed the listing following review because it was not compliant with their internal policies.
Assessment
Upheld
The CAP Code required marketers to ensure their advertising was prepared with a sense of responsibility to consumers and to society, and that ads, especially those depicting children, must not condone or encourage an unsafe practice. The Code also required that marketing communications featuring children must not contain anything likely to result in their physical harm.
We understood that toys which contained small magnets were not safe for young children, due to the risk that the item could break, and the child could swallow the magnets. We also understood that injuries sustained from swallowing magnets could be very serious, sometimes life-threatening, and that a child who had swallowed magnets would need immediate medical assessment and might have required emergency surgery. We further acknowledged that statutory guidance on toy safety regulations published by the Office for Product Safety & Standards stated that toys must not jeopardise the safety or health of users when they were used as intended or in a foreseeable way, bearing in mind the behaviour of children. It also stated that the ability of the users must be taken into account, in particular in relation to toys intended for use by children under the age of three years.
The product listing was for a magnetic building blocks toy set. Text in the product’s name at the top of the listing stated, “Building Blocks Toys Gift for 3-7 Year Old”, and the listing included images of children using the product.
While we acknowledged Plum Marketing’s comments that the children shown in the images were over three years old, we considered that some of the children in the images had the appearance of being under the age of three years. We also noted that the listing’s main image, which consumers would have been presented with when first engaging with the ad, showed a very young-looking child playing with the blocks.
Although sections of the listing stated that the product was suitable for children aged three and over, that was contradicted by further text within the listing, including wording at the top which stated, “Minimum Age (MONTHS) 3”. Further wording in the “Product information” section also stated, “Manufacturer recommended age 3 months and up”. In addition, while some of the images featured warning icons or text stating that the product was not suitable for children under the age of three, those were not visible unless the images were clicked on and fully expanded.
We acknowledged that Plum Marketing had submitted the product for testing, and that it had been shown to be compliant with relevant EU standards for the use of children over the age of three. However, we considered that the ad’s contradictory wording regarding the product’s age suitability, combined with the images of children who appeared to be under the age of three years playing with the product, gave consumers the impression that magnetic blocks were suitable for that age group, when that was not the case. We concluded that the ad condoned an unsafe practice and featured very young children engaging with a toy which was likely to cause them physical harm, and that it therefore breached the Code.
The ad breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 1.3 (Social responsibility), 4.5 (Harm and offence) and 5.1 (Children).
Action
The ad must not appear again in the form complained of. We told Shenzhenshi Senyi Dianzi Shangwu Youxiangongsi t/a Plum Marketing to ensure that their future marketing communications were prepared with a sense of responsibility to consumers and to society, and did not depict or condone an unsafe practice for children. We also told them to ensure their ads did not contain images or information that was likely to result in the physical harm of a child.
