Docstoc

DECISION

Document Sample
DECISION Powered By Docstoc
					                                                                                     02/62



                                        DECISION

                                 Meeting 14 May 2002


Complaint 02/62

               Complainant: M. Ellis      - Charlie the Juicer
              Advertisement: Brownlie Brothers Ltd - Simply Squeezed

Complaint: A television commercial for Simply Squeezed Orange juice (Key No.SS 15
    02D) showed a visual depiction of an animated orange, from which segments of skin
    peeled off to reveal a bottle of the Advertiser's product.

The voice-over said,

“There are at least two places you‟ll find orange juice.
Inside an orange, and inside every bottle of Simply Squeezed.
Simply Squeezed.
Delivered to a store near you each day."

A large graphic stated, "Simply Squeezed and delivered each day."


The Complainant said in correspondence of 11 March 2002:

"I would like to make a formal complaint after viewing a TV advertisement screened on TV
last night which was totally misleading and ask for immediate withdrawal from all TV
airwaves.

The company name is Brownlie Brothers Ltd based in Napier, Phone number 06 836 7066
and their brand is “Simply Squeezed Orange Juice”.

The date of the ad being screened was Sunday 10th of March around One News.

Essentially the ad show‟s an orange being peeled into a shape of their bottle and strongly
suggests that the contents within the bottle is pure juice from the orange.
The ingredients list for this product contains 3 types of sugar, water, concentrate,
preservatives etc. and not the pure juice of an orange.

I look forward to your prompt reply."

Further correspondence of 22 March 2002, stated:

"The following is the Commerce Commission guidelines regarding juice labelling and
advertising, what can and can‟t be said. We are very concerned with the Simply Squeezed
                                               2
                                                                                          02/62
ads as they portray that the product is pure, 100% and squeezed. This is not the case as can
be seen by the Commerce Commission‟s definitions for these specific terms.

Simply Squeezed contains sugars, preservatives, concentrate, water and orange juice.

Our major concern is with the overall impressions these ads create, which is that this juice is
a pure product which quite clearly it is not.

We have rung Steve Brownlie. the managing director of Simply Squeezed, to discuss this ad.
He told us to "tell someone who cares”. We feel that urgent action needs to be taken as he
stands to make huge benefits out of this misleading advertisement at the consumers
expense."

A copy of the "Draft Summary of Commission Position Regarding Juice Labelling"
was attached.


The Chairman ruled that the following provisions from the Advertising Codes of
Practice were relevant:


The Code for Advertising Food

Principle 2: "All food advertisements should be prepared with a due sense of social
responsibility to consumers and to society. However advertisements containing nutrient,
nutrition, health or therapeutic claims, should observe a high standard of social
responsibility."

And

Principle 4: "Advertisements should not by implication, omission, ambiguity or exaggerated
claim mislead or deceive or be likely to mislead or deceive consumers, abuse the trust of or
exploit the lack of knowledge of consumers, exploit the superstitious or without justifiable
reason play on fear."


The Advertiser, Brownlie Brothers Ltd, said also on behalf of the Agency, Len Potts
Creative:

"Thank you for the opportunity to respond to the complaint against our advertising, In
conjunction with Len Potts I would like to make the following points.

   1. Vernon King and associates are used for media planning and placement only.

   2. The advertisement was conceived and produced by LEN POTTS CREATIVE. The
      address is: R.D.12, Te Mata Road, Havelock North.
                                                3
                                                                                         02/62
      3. Try as we might. We can find no transgression with Principle of the Advertising
         Code.

         a.   The advertisement shows an obviously animated orange. (not a real orange)
         b.   Oranges have orange juice inside them. (not only orange juice, they also have
              pith and pips)
         c.   Our product also has Orange Juice inside it.
         d.   We nowhere make the claim that it is 100%. We nowhere make the claim that it
              is pure. We nowhere make the claim that it is fresh.

      4. The brand name of our product is SIMPLY SQUEEZED and it has been that for over
         10 years.

      5. Charlie‟s Trading Company (the complainant) has also complained to the Commerce
         Commission with regard to the image created by our brand “Simply Squeezed” and
         their thoughts that it gives the impression of pure 100% and squeezed. We were
         under the impression that once you had complained to your board it was to go no
         further than yourselves.

      6. The complainant seems to be bothered mostly by “impressions” saying, “our major
         concern is with the overall impression these ads make, which is that this juice is a
         pure product when quite clearly it is not”. Our comment is that if impressions are
         against the law, advertising would cease to exist. For example, Air New Zealand ads
         give them the impression their planes don‟t crash. Unfortunately, from time to time,
         they do.

      7. Using the orange device would seem to us to be absolutely no different from
         Cadbury‟s using a glass and a half of milk.

      8. We have had not one single complaint from any other source.

      9. We note that the juice “Charlie‟s” includes on its label the words: “Made by God -
         bottled and Guaranteed by Charlies”. Unless the phrase “Made by God” refers to Mr.
         Ellis himself we wonder if it contravenes Principal 4 (e) which states advertisements
         should not claim or imply endorsement by any Government agency, professional
         body or independent agency unless there is prior consent, the claim and the
         endorsement is verifiable, current and the agency or body named.

10.      Simply Squeezed has over 45% of the Auckland Juice Market. Charlie‟s has around
         5%. Not too much should be read into this.

Thank you. If you have any concerns please don‟t hesitate to contact myself."




Television Commercial Approvals Bureau (TVCAB) said on behalf of the media:
                                              4
                                                                                         02/62
"The complainant believes this advertisement to be misleading, in that it “strongly suggests
that the content within the bottle is pure juice from the orange.” There is a concern that the
"overall impression” is that the juice is a "pure, 100% and squeezed" product.

The script of the commercial is as follows:

      “There are at least two places you‟ll find orange juice.
      Inside an orange, and inside every bottle of Simply Squeezed.
      Simply Squeezed.
      Delivered to a store near you each day."

These lines are spoken over a visual of an orange skin peeling back to reveal a bottle of
Simply Squeezed.

There is no doubt that the product contains orange juice. The script is therefore factually
correct. At no stage does the commercial use the terms “pure” or “100%”. While the
complainant may feel that this implication exists, we disagree, and believe that it would be
difficult to imagine the average viewer making this assumption. We feel that the visual
association made between a peeled orange and the product is appropriate and contextual.

It is our opinion that this commercial does not mislead or deceive consumers, as prohibited
in Principle 4 of the Code for Advertising of Food. It should be noted that the complainant is
a competitor in the juice market, and the complaint cannot therefore be held to represent the
views of the average consumer."


Deliberation


The Board perused the submissions before it and viewed the advertisement.

It noted the Complainant was of the opinion that the advertisement was misleading as the
visual implied the product, "Simply Squeezed Orange Juice", contained 100% pure orange
juice when, in the Complainant's opinion, it contained other ingredients as well.

The relevant provisions in the Advertising Codes of Practice were the Code for Advertising
Food, Principles 2 (Social responsibility) and 4 (Misleading).

As a preliminary matter, the Board advised that its jurisdiction pertained to the television
advertisement only and not the labeling on the bottle, as that was a matter for the Commerce
Commission.

The Board then took cognisance that the advertisement showed the skin peeling back from
an animated orange to reveal a bottle of Simply Squeezed Orange, as the voice-over stated
that the two places to find orange juice, were inside an orange and inside a bottle of Simply
Squeezed. This, in the opinion of the majority of the Board, implied that the juice in the
orange and the bottle were exactly the same, that is 100% orange juice.
                                               5
                                                                                          02/62
However, a minority of the Board was of the view that the Advertiser was only making a
claim about oranges and its product, which it was entitled to do, and the subject of whether
or not the Simply Squeezed product was 100% orange juice was not an issue raised in the
advertisement.

In the majority view, however, the impression of 100% orange juice, was carried further in
the voice-over by repetition of the product's name "Simply Squeezed" which simultaneously
implied that the simple process of squeezing an orange was all that was required to produce
the finished product.

Also the wording, "delivered to a store near you each day", in the majority's view, reinforced
the message that this product did not contain any preservative.

Accordingly, a majority of the Board was of the opinion that the accumulation of the
messages in the visual, in conjunction with the voice-over, gave the impression that the
content in the bottle was 100% orange juice with no additives.

Also, the Board noted the Advertiser, Brownlie Brothers Ltd, had not in its written
submission, addressed the Complainant's assertion about the content of its product "Simply
Squeezed". Therefore, with no evidence to refute the Complainant's assertion about the
product, the majority was of the view that it had no option but to uphold the complaint. In its
view the way in which the wording "simply squeezed" had been used in the advertisement
constituted an absolute claim, and as such required substantiation by the Advertiser if
challenged.

In the majority view the advertisement was in breach of Principle 2 of the Code for
Advertising Food, which required advertisers to maintain a high standard of social
responsibility when promoting food products to consumers. It was also in breach of
Principle 4, as by implication it misled, or was likely to mislead, consumers to believe that
the product "Simply Squeezed" was 100% orange juice.



Accordingly the Board ruled to uphold the complaint.


Decision: Complaint Upheld
                                                                                           02/62

Appeal 02/20

                                      DECISION

                                 Meeting 5 November 2002

Complaint 02/62
Appeal 02/20

                Appellant: Brownlie Brothers Ltd - Simply Squeezed
               Advertisement: Brownlie Brothers Ltd - Simply Squeezed

Complaint: A television commercial for Simply Squeezed Orange Juice (Key No.SS 15
02D) contained a depiction of an animated orange, from which segments of skin peeled off
to reveal a bottle of the Advertiser's product.

The voice-over said,

“There are at least two places you‟ll find orange juice.
Inside an orange, and inside every bottle of Simply Squeezed.
Simply Squeezed.
Delivered to a store near you each day."

A large graphic stated, "Simply Squeezed and delivered each day."


The Complainant, M. Ellis of Charlies Trading Company Ltd, said in correspondence
of 11 March 2002, that the Brownlie Brothers Ltd "Simply Squeezed" advertisement was
misleading, as it gave the overall impression that the content within the bottle was pure
orange juice, when this was not the case.


The Chairman had ruled that the relevant provisions were Principles 2 and 4 of
the Code for Advertising Food.


Code for Advertising of Food:

Principle 2: All food advertisements should be prepared with a due sense of social
responsibility to consumers and to society. However advertisements containing nutrient,
nutrition, health or therapeutic claims, should observe a high standard of social responsibility.

And

Principle 4: Advertisements should not by implication, omission, ambiguity or exaggerated
claim mislead or deceive or be likely to mislead or deceive consumers, abuse the trust of or
                                               2


                                                                                           02/62

                                                                                    Appeal 02/20

exploit the lack of knowledge of consumers, exploit the superstitious or without justifiable
reason play on fear.


The Complaints Board, at its meeting on 14 May 2002, ruled the Complaint be Upheld as
it was in breach of the Codes.


The Appeal


The Advertiser, Brownlie Brothers Ltd, in correspondence of 21 June from its Solicitors,
Elvidge & Partners, appealed the Complaints Board ruling as follows:

"We act for Brownlie Brothers Limited, the owners of the brand name Simply Squeezed.

Please accept this letter as our client‟s request to appeal the Advertising Standards
Complaints Board decision sent under covering letter dated 4 June 2002 and received on 7
June 2002.

The grounds of appeal are:

1      The evidence provided to the Complaints Board has been misinterpreted to the extent
       that it has affected the decision.
2.     The decision is against the weight of evidence.

If a more formal notice of appeal is required please advise as soon as possible."


The Advertiser, Brownlie Brothers Ltd, in correspondence of 1 August from its Solicitors,
Elvidge & Partners, appealed the Complaints Board ruling as follows:

"1.0   THE ADVERTISEMENT

1.1    A television commercial for Simply Squeezed orange juice showed a visual depiction
       of an animated orange, from which segments of skin peeled off to reveal a bottle of
       the advertiser‟s product.

       The voice-over said:

       “There are at least two places you will find orange juice.
       Inside an orange, and inside every bottle of Simply Squeezed
                                             3


                                                                                         02/62

                                                                                Appeal 02/20

      Simply Squeezed.
      Delivered to a store near you each day."

      A large graphic stated, “Simply Squeezed and delivered each day”.

2.0   THE DECISION

2.1   The board upheld the complaint because it held:

      i)     The visual combined with the voice-over implied that the juice in the orange
             and the bottle were exactly the same, that is 100% orange juice; and

      ii)    That this implication or impression was reinforced by the repetition of the
             products name “Simply Squeezed”; and

      iii)   The wording “Delivered to a store near you each day” reinforced the message
             that this product did not contain preservative.

3.0   FIRST SUBMISSION

3.1   The Board in the first paragraph on page 5 of its decision stated the following:

      “The Board then took cognisance that the advertisement showed the skin peeling
      back from an animated orange to reveal a bottle of Simply Squeezed Orange, as the
      voice-over stated that the two places to find orange juice, were inside an orange and
      inside a bottle of Simply Squeezed. This, in the opinion of the majority of the Board,
      implied that the juice in the orange and the bottle were exactly the same, that is 100%
      orange juice”.

3.2   This statement is incorrect. The voice-over does not state “That the two places to find
      orange juice, were inside an orange and inside a bottle of Simply Squeezed”. The
      advertisement states that there are at least two places to find orange juice.

3.3   The error the Board has made is subtle but highly important. The advertisers
      statement is that you will find orange juice in an orange and inside a bottle of Simply
      Squeezed. The Board has misinterpreted the advertiser to be saying that the only two
      places to find orange juice are in an orange and inside a bottle of Simply Squeezed
      and therefore they are exactly the same. The Board‟s misunderstanding and error of
      fact has helped lead it to the incorrect conclusion that the advertisement is misleading
      or likely to be so.

4.0   SECOND SUBMISSION
                                             4


                                                                                         02/62

                                                                                Appeal 02/20


4.1   The Board by majority has concluded that by implication and impression the
      advertisement is misleading or likely to mislead consumers to believe that the product
      Simply Squeezed was 100% orange juice.

4.2   The decision was not unanimous. The minority held that the advertiser was only
      making a claim about oranges and its product, which it was entitled to do and the
      subject of whether or not the Simply Squeezed product was 100% orange juice was
      not an issue raised in the advertisement.

4.3   Where the Board is proceeding by “implication and impression” the test of what is
      misleading should not be set at an impossibly high level for advertisers. There appears
      an acceptance in the decision that no incorrect statements are made.

4.4   The appeal should be allowed because quite simply there is no sufficient basis for
      holding that a reasonable consumer would be misled or would be likely to be misled.
      The advertisement has drawn an analogy which the Board has concluded must be
      misleading because the contents of a bottle of Simply Squeezed orange and the
      contents of an orange are not exactly the same. It is important therefore to examine
      the differences which are said by the complainant to create the differences:

      i)     The addition of re-constituted orange juice. This is orange juice from which
             water has been extracted and then added back. It is orange juice. The
             complainant has also claimed that Simply Squeezed contains water. Other than
             re-constituting orange juice in the way described no other water is added to
             Simply Squeezed orange. In other words it is not diluted. Therefore this part of
             the complainant‟s allegations does not assist in differentiating the contents of a
             bottle of Simply Squeezed orange from the contents of an orange.

      ii)    The addition of sucrose. Sugars occur naturally in oranges. Just as with grapes
             the brix level of oranges is measured to test the sweetness of an orange.
             Sucrose is only added to achieve the brix level achieved naturally at certain
             times of the growing season. Sucrose is added to give consistency of taste to
             the advertisers product throughout the year. Therefore the addition of sucrose
             does not differentiate a bottle of Simply Squeezed orange from a ripe orange
             at the height of the growing season.

      iii)   Finally preservative is added. Reasonable consumers know that preservatives
             are added to all sorts of foods. This can effectively be the only distinction
             between the contents of a bottle of Simply Squeezed orange and an orange
             itself. Nowhere does the advertisement claim a bottle of Simply Squeezed to
             be 100% pure or to be fresh.
                                             5


                                                                                       02/62

                                                                              Appeal 02/20


5.0   SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY

5.1   The addition of preservative, present as it is in so many food forms cannot make this
      advertisement socially irresponsible. This is especially so when the addition of
      preservative is clearly stated on the label.

6.0   SUMMARY

6.1   The Board has erred in fact in coming to its decision. It has proceeded on the basis
      that the advertisement has stated that the two places to find orange juice were inside
      an orange and inside a bottle of Simply Squeezed. That is not what the advertisement
      said. The distinction is subtle but important.

6.2   The Board has accepted the erroneous factual claims of a competitor as to what
      differentiates Simply Squeezed from an orange. The addition of re-constituted orange
      juice, water (even if it was added and it is not) and sucrose does not create a
      distinction between the two.

6.3   The Board has failed to apply a reasonable consumer or reasonable viewer test to the
      allegation the advertisement was misleading or likely to be so.

6.4   In concluding this advertisement is misleading or likely to mislead the Board has
      found that the advertisement does so by implication and impression. The Board has
      found that the advertisement does so by implication and impression. This is
      particularly so when the New Zealand Court of Appeal has held that not everyone
      who misconceives the nature of a product has been misled or deceived -Unilever New
      Zealand Limited v Cerebos Gregg‟s Limited 6 TCLR

6.5   The precedent value of this decision is to hold that any advertisement for a form of
      food or drink which by implication can be subjectively said to create an impression
      that a product is fresh or pure, even though the advertisement does not directly make
      that claim, will be misleading or likely to be so if the food product or drink contains
      preservative."

The Complainant, M. Ellis of Charlies TRADING Company Ltd, replied: "Re: Simply
Squeezed Orange Juice Television Advertisement- Complaint 2002/62-Appeal 2002/20

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the appeal request made by Elvidge &
Partners on behalf of Simply Squeezed.
                                              6


                                                                                         02/62

                                                                                Appeal 02/20

Related to the submission points raised by Elvidge & Partners we would like to proffer the
following.

Elvidge & Partners assert that the addition of preservatives “can effectively be the only
distinction between the contents of a bottle of simply squeezed and an orange itself‟ The fact
that they also state that Simply Squeezed adds Sucrose to the product completely
undermines this premise. Sucrose is derived from Cane sugar. An orange has no Sucrose
(cane sugar) but has naturally occurring fruit sugars, Fructose.

We understand that it is normal when adding Sucrose to juice to dissolve the crystals in
water before adding it to the juice. You will agree this implies additional water. The front
panel of the Simply Squeezed bottle pictured in the TVC states.
“Simply Squeezed”
Delivered daily
100% Squeezed
Orange Juice.

The New Zealand Commerce Commission has black and white guidelines re the use of such
words.

“SQUEEZED should only be used for not from concentrate juices. Where „squeezed‟ is used
along with „fresh‟, „freshly‟ or other words that indicate immediacy (i.e. Daily) the product
should be fresh and not from concentrate”
“100% - should have nothing added (neither preservatives, water, ascorbic acid flavoring
etc.”

The voice over for the first Simply Squeezed TVC states "Simply squeezed and delivered to
a store near you each day” it does not state Simply Squeezed is delivered to a store near you
each day. It is an intentional attempt to provide a link between the name of the brand and the
contents/ingredients of the product. This is misleading.

The Second TVC has no voice over but has graphics stating, “Simply squeezed and
delivered each day” the same direct implication is made.

A complete ingredients list for Simply Squeezed Orange juice.
*Imported Orange Juice concentrate. (Squeezed fruit is heat evaporated and reduced 7-9
times from its original state and the pulp is removed. This product has a shelf life from 3-5
years and is traded as a commodity on world markets)
* Hawkes Bay tap water
* Sucrose (Cane sugar)
* Squeezed juice both local and imported
* Preservative 202
                                              7


                                                                                         02/62

                                                                                Appeal 02/20


We believe the product undergoes a pasteurization process at the factory in Hastings to
complete the manufacturing process.

Given the composition and process involved in making the product we find it quite
extraordinary that Simply Squeezed can contend that their product is not to be differentiated
from the contents of a ripe orange at the height of the growing season. We strongly believe
the Board has made the correct decision in the interest of the New Zealand consumer and
business ethics. We believe that the Simply Squeezed TV advertising campaign withdrawn
from air was intentionally misleading and designed to promote key functional benefits of a
product that cannot legally make these claims. May we suggest that if the average consumer
is shown the Simply Squeezed television commercials and front label of the bottle pictured
and is surveyed as to what he/she believes is in the product, the result will be categorical.

In the interest of transparency I have forwarded a copy of my response to Elvidge and
Partners and to the New Zealand Commerce Commission.

Thank you for the ability to comment on this contentious issue, we are naturally very
concerned with the negative impact these misleading activities are having on the New
Zealand juice industry as a whole."


Television Commercial Approvals Bureau (TVCAB) on behalf of the media, advised
that they did not wish to add further comment on the appeal.


Deliberation

The Appeal Board perused all relevant correspondence and Complaints Board Decision
02/62 of 14 May 2002. It also viewed the "Simply Squeezed" television Advertisement.

It noted that the Complaints Board had ruled that the Advertisement was in breach of the
Code for Advertising Food, Principles 2 and 4, and accordingly had upheld the complaint
submitted by Charlie's Trading Company Ltd, that the advertisement was misleading as it
implied the product, “Simply Squeezed Orange Juice”, contained 100% pure orange juice.

As a preliminary issue the Appeal Board found that the Complaints Board had erred in that
Decision in finding the Simply Squeezed television advertisement in breach of Principle 2 of
the Code for Advertising of Food. It noted that Principle 2 stated the following requirements:

First Sentence: “All food advertisements should be prepared with a due sense of social
responsibility to consumers and to society.”
                                               8


                                                                                           02/62

                                                                                  Appeal 02/20


Second Sentence: “However advertisements containing nutrient, nutrition, health or
therapeutic claims, should observe a high standard of social responsibility.”

The Appeal Board noted that the Simply Squeezed advertisement did not in fact contain a
“nutrient, nutrition, health or therapeutic claim” and therefore could not be held, as stated in
Decision 02/262, to be in “breach of Principle 2 of the Code for Advertising of Food which
required advertisers to maintain a high standard of social responsibility when promoting
food products to consumers.” as this provision did not apply. The Advertisement could,
however, have been held to have been in breach of the first part of Principle 2 which
required all advertisements to “be prepared with a due sense of social responsibility to
consumers and to society.” However, the Appeal Board was unanimously of the view that
the Advertisement met the threshold of having been prepared with a due sense of social
responsibility, and accordingly, ruled that it did not effect a breach of Principle 2 of the
Code for Advertising Food.

The Appeal Board then took into account the provision of Principle 4, and in particular
whether in its view the advertisement “by implication, omission, ambiguity or exaggerated
claim" misled or deceived, or was "likely to mislead or deceive consumers."

In doing so it referred to the points raised by Elvidge & Partners, Solicitors for the
Advertiser Brownlie Brothers Limited, who in the appeal submission and in particular 3.2 of
the “First Submission” stated:

“…The voice-over does not state “That the two places to find orange juice, were inside an
orange and inside a bottle of Simply Squeezed”. The advertisement states that there are at
least two places to find orange juice.”

The Appeal Board noted that the Appellant raised the issue that the Complaints Board had
misinterpreted the advertisement when it ruled “the advertiser to be saying that the only two
places to find orange juice are inside an orange and inside a bottle of Simply Squeezed and
therefore they are exactly the same.” However, the Appeal Board was of the view that even
the correct voice-over, "that there are at least two places to find orange juice" changed the
meaning in such a subtle way that it did not affect the substance of the advertisement.
Accordingly, the Appeal Board ruled that the evidence provided to the Complaints Board
(the video of the advertisement) had not been misinterpreted to the extent that it affected the
decision, and the appeal failed on that ground.

The Appeal Board then turned its mind to the issues raised by the Appellant in 4.0 of the
Second Submission and whether, in its view, the Complaints Board had ruled correctly that
the Simply Squeezed advertisement was in breach of Principle 4, “as by implication it
                                               9


                                                                                          02/62

                                                                                 Appeal 02/20

misled, or was likely to mislead consumers to believe that the product “Simply Squeezed”
was 100% orange juice.”

In making its determination the Appeal Board examined the advertisement, and in particular
the likely viewer takeout from the advertisement as a totality. It observed the visual which
showed an animated orange from which segments of skin peeled off to reveal a bottle of the
Advertiser‟s product, Simply Squeezed orange juice. It also observed the on-screen graphic
which stated, “Simply Squeezed and delivered each day.” which was reinforced by the line
in the voice-over which said, “Delivered to a store near you each day.” Accordingly, the
Appeal Board was of the view that the most likely viewer interpretation would be that the
orange juice inside a bottle of “Simply Squeezed” was 100% pure fresh orange juice which
had a short shelf life requiring daily delivery to the consumer, as it did not contain
preservative.

The Appeal Board was also of the view that the phrase in the on-screen graphic, “Simply
Squeezed and delivered each day”, could be interpreted by the viewer as a description of two
processes employed to provide the product to the consumer. The first process was that the
orange was “simply squeezed” and the second, that it was “delivered each day.” This in the
Appeal Board's view reinforced the likely viewer interpretation that the product was 100%
pure and was not processed in any way. In respect of this the Appeal Board commented that
as there were many competing brands of fruit juice, particularly orange juice, on the market,
there was no room for ambiguity as contained in the advertisement before it.

The Appeal Board also noted from the Appellant‟s submission that the product, the orange
juice in a bottle of Simply Squeezed, had three ingredients added. These were:

1. Re-constituted orange juice.
2. Sucrose (cane Sugar), and
3. Preservative.

Therefore, in the Appeal Board‟s view, the orange juice was not “simply squeezed” but was
processed substantially. Accordingly, it was of the view that the combination of the wording
“simply squeezed” in conjunction with the graphic and voice over, both of which claimed
daily delivery, would by implication, ambiguity or exaggerated claim, mislead or deceive or
be likely to mislead or deceive consumers. Thereby, the Simply Squeezed advertisement
effected a breach of Principle 4 of the Code for Advertising of Food.

The Appeal Board also drew the Advertiser‟s attention to Guideline 4(d) which stated:
“Claims in an advertisement should not be inconsistent with information on the label or
packaging of the food.” In the case before it, the Appeal Board noted that the label on the
product contained a list of ingredients, and therefore the implied claim made in the television
advertisement was inconsistent with the information printed on the product label.
                                            10


                                                                                      02/62

                                                                              Appeal 02/20


The Appeal Board acknowledged that the precedent value of this Decision was that any
advertisement for a form of food or drink which by implication could be said to create an
impression that a product was fresh or pure, even though the advertisement did not directly
make that claim, would be held to be misleading to the consumer, or likely to be so, if the
food product or drink contained preservative.

The Appeal Board ruled to endorse the Complaints Board Decision of 14 May 2002 to
uphold the Complaint in respect of Principle 4 of the Code for Advertising of Food.


Accordingly, the Appeal Board ruled that the appeal be dismissed.


Decision: Appeal Dismissed

				
DOCUMENT INFO