Background
Summary of Council decision:
Three issues were investigated, all of which were Upheld.
Ad description
Two local press ads in The Rotherham Advertiser and the digital version of The Argus, placed by Stacey Bradley:
a. The ad in The Rotherham Advertiser, published on 13 January 2022, featured large text at the top of the page that stated “NATIONAL EMERGENCY” and, at the bottom of the page, “THE TRUTH IS OUT”, both situated prominently on red and yellow striped banners. The main body of the ad featured the heading “CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION” accompanied by the logo of The Metropolitan Police Service and the text “CRIME NUMBER 6029679/21”. Further text stated “Related crimes and threats to the public health, gross negligent manslaughter and misconduct in the public office. A further 18 offences have also been cited including murder, fraud, GBH and multiple breaches of the Nuremburg Code”. Smaller text in red font stated “See: www.saveusnow.org/covid-vaccine-scientific-proof-lethal”. A further heading stated “Do you have information to help?” with the sub-heading “THIS IS NOT TO MAKE FINANCIAL CLAIMS FOR INJURY FROM THE COVID-19 VACCINE” also in red. Further text stated “Have you lost a loved one due to the Covid Vaccine? Do you suffer headaches, bloodclots [sic], blindness, heart issues, strokes or myocarditis since the Covid 19 vaccine? We’d also like to hear from those illegally threatened with ‘No Jab, No Job’”. Underneath, large prominent red text stated “Bayliss of Broad Yorkshire Law – [email protected]”, followed by the crest of the South Yorkshire Police accompanied by the text “South Yorkshire POLICE”. Further smaller text stated “PLEASE IMMEDIATELY REPORT ANY COVID-19 VACCINE INJURIES & DEATHS INCLUDING ANY UNDUE INFLUENCE TO TAKE THE INJECTION INCLUDING ‘NO JAB / NO JOB’”.
b. The ad in the digital version of The Argus, published 21 January 2022, had the same content and layout as ad (a) except that it included a QR code and a different URL to that included in ad (a): “See: https://coronavirus-yellowcard.mhra.gov.uk/”. The ad featured the crest of South Yorkshire Police, but the accompanying text stated “POLICE” only.
Issue
Six complainants, including Full Fact, an independent fact-checking organisation, challenged whether the ads:
1. misleadingly implied they had been placed, approved or endorsed by public bodies including police forces such as The Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) and South Yorkshire Police (SYP);
2. misleadingly implied that vaccinations against COVID-19 were unsafe and illegal, and that police forces were currently undertaking a criminal investigation into the administration of COVID-19 vaccinations in the UK; and
3. were harmful and socially irresponsible.
Response
1., 2. & 3. Stacey Bradley acknowledged the complaint and provided a link to an article in a local newspaper reporting that an individual had died after receiving the COVID-19 vaccine.
The Rotherham Advertiser, who published ad (a), told us that they would not run the ad or similar ads in future. They had assured each police force that they would not publish any ads that featured their logos without permission.
They believed that the ad’s implication that vaccines were unsafe was not necessarily misleading given that some people experienced adverse reactions to them. They also believed that the ad’s publication was consistent with their newspaper’s commitment to offering a balanced view on current issues. They stated that the UK’s COVID-19 vaccine roll-out had been ongoing for some time by the time of the ad’s publication. As such, they believed that readers would have already come to their own views on vaccinations through other sources of information or by being vaccinated themselves. On that basis, they did not believe that it was harmful or irresponsible. They also stated that it was unlikely that the ad’s content shocked readers for the same reason.
The Argus, who published ad (b), did not respond to our enquiries.
Assessment
1. Upheld
The ASA considered that the use of the MPS and SYP logos gave readers the impression that the ads had been placed, approved, or endorsed by those police forces. We further considered that other elements of each ad, such as the heading that stated “CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION”, the crime reference number and other references to “crimes” and “offences”, the request for information about and reports of adverse reactions to the vaccine or “undue influence to take the injection” and the large text that stated “POLICE” at the bottom of the ads supported that impression.
The heading “NATIONAL EMERGENCY” appeared in large text at the top of each ad. Both ads also featured bright yellow and red stripes that were suggestive of ‘emergency’ markings used in UK Government ads placed throughout the pandemic in promotion of public health measures. We considered that those elements gave readers the impression that the ads were official communications from a public body. We further considered that the link to the MHRA website included in ad (b) contributed to that effect.Stacey Bradley did not provide any evidence that they had received authorisation from any public body. Further, we understood that neither police force had given the advertiser permission to use their logo, and that they had not been otherwise aware of, or involved in, the ads’ creation. We therefore concluded that the ads misleadingly implied they were placed, approved or endorsed by public bodies when they were not.
On that point, ads (a) and (b) 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 3.50 3.50 Marketing communications must not display a trust mark, quality mark or equivalent without the necessary authorisation. Marketing communications must not claim that the marketer (or any other entity referred to), the marketing communication or the advertised product has been approved, endorsed or authorised by any public or other body if it has not or without complying with the terms of the approval, endorsement or authorisation. (Endorsements and testimonials).
2. Upheld
We considered that the heading “CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION”, the police force logos, crime reference number and the text in the ads’ copy referring to criminal offences and reference to people being “illegally threatened with ‘No Jab, No Job’” were likely to give readers the impression that UK police forces were investigating the legality of the UK’s COVID-19 vaccine roll-out. We noted that neither MPS nor SYP had launched any criminal investigation into the UK government’s administration of COVID-19 vaccines. Further, MPS had publicly explained that their crime reference numbers should not be taken as evidence of an ongoing criminal investigation as they were issued upon receipt of every complaint. We considered the ad therefore misleadingly implied that police forces were undertaking a criminal investigation into the administration of COVID-19 vaccinations in the UK.
Both ads claimed that “threats to the public health, gross negligent manslaughter”, “murder” and “GBH” had been involved in the administration of the vaccine. They also listed possible adverse reactions under the text “Have you lost a loved one due to the Covid Vaccine?”. Ad (a) also included the URL “www.saveusnow.org/covid-vaccine-scientific-proof-lethal”. We considered that those elements of the ads were likely to give readers the impression that the vaccine was unsafe.
Ad (b) included the URL for the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency’s (MHRA) Coronavirus Yellow Card site, where any suspected adverse reactions to the vaccine could be reported. We considered, when seen in context below the list of alleged crimes, that the inclusion of the URL in the ad gave the impression that data collected via the Yellow Card Scheme supported that the vaccine caused high numbers of injuries and fatalities. However, we noted the MHRA had stated that a report to the Yellow Card Scheme should not be interpreted as a proven effect of the vaccine.
The MHRA required that, prior to their approval, COVID-19 vaccines met strict evidential standards for safety and efficacy in several stages of clinical trials. We also understood that side-effects and adverse reactions associated with approved vaccines were continually monitored by the MHRA through various means. As such, we understood that the public body with relevant expertise considered that the vaccine was safe and effective.
Because we considered the ads gave the overall impression that vaccine was unsafe and illegal, we concluded that they were misleading.
On that point, ads (a) and (b) breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rule 3.1 3.1 Marketing communications must not materially mislead or be likely to do so. (Misleading advertising).
3. Upheld
We considered that the implication in the ads that COVID-19 vaccines were unsafe and that the vaccine programme was illegal had the effect of encouraging vaccine hesitancy. Further, because the ads gave the impression of being placed, approved or endorsed by public bodies, we considered readers were likely to pay greater attention and place greater trust in the ads’ message. Because of that, we considered the ads were unduly alarming and caused fear of COVID-19 vaccines without justifiable reason. We considered there was therefore a risk that the ads would discourage readers from being vaccinated. Because that could result in less protection for them and for the population more widely, we concluded that the ads were socially irresponsible.
On that point, ads (a) and (b) breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 1.3 1.3 Marketing communications must be prepared with a sense of responsibility to consumers and to society. (Social responsibility) and 4.2 4.2 Marketing communications must not cause fear or distress without justifiable reason; if it can be justified, the fear or distress should not be excessive. Marketers must not use a shocking claim or image merely to attract attention. (Harm & offence).
Action
The ads must not appear again in the form complained of. We told Stacey Bradley that their future ads must not misleadingly imply they had been placed, endorsed, or approved by a public body, including by unauthorised use of their logos. We also told them not to misleadingly imply that COVID-19 vaccinations were unsafe, including by implying that the MHRA Yellow Card Scheme was evidence that the vaccines were unsafe. Neither should they misleadingly imply that COVID-19 vaccinations were illegal, including by implying that a crime reference number was evidence of an ongoing criminal investigation. We also told Stacey Bradley to ensure that their future ads were socially responsible and did not cause fear without justifiable reason.
