Advertising watchdog ASA has banned two ads from respective retailers, while clearing a third in its latest round of rulings.
Furniture retailer Glasgow Sofa has been told clarify future competition terms and prizes.
Glasgow Sofa displayed two posts on Facebook promoting a competition and prize giveaway to the resulting winner.
However, a complainant challenged whether the promotions had been conducted fairly, as no winner had been published, and there was no prominent closing date.
The company failed to respond to ASA’s enquires, leading to the watchdog banning the ads. A statement said: “We told Velvet Sofa Ltd t/a Glasgow Sofa to ensure they awarded prizes as described in their marketing communications and that future promotions clearly included all significant terms and conditions and, where applicable, included a prominent closing date.”
Furniture business Luxsleeps has been told to award a competition prize winner their award following a complaint to the ASA.
Seen on 11 August 2019 through influencer @amelias.homestyle.x’s Instagram page, a bespoke bed from Luxsleeps was promoted as a prize as part of a social competition
The complainant, who had been notified that they had won the prize but did not receive it, challenged the promotion.
Luxsleeps did not respond to the ASA, however, @amelias.homestyle.x said that the giveaway was posted to celebrate reaching a certain number of followers on Instagram.
Despite there was no contract between her and Luxsleeps, it was expected that the winner would receive the bed once the giveaway had concluded and provided screenshots of attempts to contact Luxsleeps, with no response.
Ruling on the case, the ASA instructed Luxsleeps to ‘award the prize to the complainant and to ensure that future promotions were conducted in accordance with the Code’.
Meanwhile, pillowcase business Slipsilk has seen its ad cleared of misleading claims following a successful investigation by the ASA.
Silkskin Ltd challenged whether “The original and the best since 2004” and “Laboratory tested 43% less friction” claims were misleading and could be substantiated following an advertisement promoting silk products on Slipsilk’s website.
Slipsilk responded with detailed evidence, leading to the ASA not upholding the complaint against the claims.
The ASA said: “We considered that the evidence demonstrated that the methodology used was appropriate and that it substantiated the claim in the ad. We therefore concluded that the claim was not misleading.”