
www.duncangrehan.com
|
EALA COUNTRY REPORT
|
Date:
|
|
|
IRELAND - JUNE 2002
|
1.
|
|
|
Topic:
|
New Code of Advertising Standards
and Sales Promotion Practice
|
|
Who:
|
Advertising Standards Authority of Ireland
|
|
When:
|
April 2002
|
|
Where:
|
Ireland
|
|
What happened:
|
Ireland has implemented a new Code
on Advertising Standards and Sales Promotion Practice.
The Advertising Standards Authority of Ireland which
is the independent self-regulatory body for the advertising
industry implemented the Code in April of this year.
The main changes made to the 1995 Code are as follows:
· Rules
on offensiveness in advertisements have been broadened
to take account of the Equal Status Act, 2000
· Rules
on price quotations have been tightened to make the
total costs clearer to consumers and to avoid exaggerating
the availability of goods and services.
· Advertisements
may still have to be withdrawn where it is decided they
are unsuitable for children even where they are not
directed to children
· There
are now much stricter rules on advertisements featuring
alcohol in response to concern about the effect they
have on young people.
· Sales
promotions and paid-for advertising on the Internet
are now formally within the Code
· Advertisers
must now have signed and dated proof of any tests, trials
or endorsements relied upon in their advertisements.
|
|
Comment:
|
The Advertising Standards Authority
of Ireland has now updated its Code for Advertising
and Sales Promotions practice to take account of advances
in technology, new legislation and also public opinion
in relation to alcohol advertising and advertising to
children. It ensures that advertisers are kept aware
of their obligations both as a result of legislation
and their own self-regulation.
|
|
2.
|
|
|
Legislation:
|
European Communities (Data Protection)
Regulations, 2001
|
|
When:
|
April 2002
|
|
Where:
|
Ireland
|
|
What happened:
|
Ireland has now taken its first steps
in implementing the Data Protection Directive 95/46/EC.
The newly implemented regulations make several amendments
to the Data Protection Act, 1988 which was the only
previous legislation applicable to data protection law.
- Under the Data Protection Act, 1988 data controllers were under
a duty to provide appropriate security measures to
ensure personal data could not be accessed without
authorisation or altered, lost or destroyed. This
became increasingly difficult as information is transferred
more and more by electronic medium. The new regulations
allow data controllers to balance the cost of security
measures and the technology available to use them
against the type and value of the data involved and
the damage which would occur if it was accessed
- It is now more difficult to prohibit transfers of data to countries
outside the European Economic Area. If that country
ensures an adequate level of data protection in line
with EU regulations then the Data Protection Commissioner
cannot prohibit it. In addition if US companies are
in line with the US Safe Harbour agreement
then they are also seen as ensuring an adequate level
of data protection
- Restrictions on transfers to countries outside the EEA also
do not apply to transfers where the subject has given
his consent to it or where the transfer would be necessary
for the performance or conclusion of a contract between
the parties.
- If a data controller retains the services of an agent or data
processor to process data on their behalf then they
must use a contract in writing or equivalent form
which deals adequately with issues of security, confidentiality
and other data protection matters.
|
|
Comment:
|
The Regulations reflect the changing
global economy and advances in technology since the
Data Protection Act, 1988 was implemented. It is expected
that the remainder of the Directive will be implemented
at a later stage by the Data Protection (Amendment)
Bill, 2002.
|
|
3.
|
|
|
Topic:
|
Billboard Advertisement
|
|
Who:
|
Advertising Standards Authority of Ireland
|
|
When:
|
April 2002
|
|
Where:
|
Ireland
|
|
What happened:
|
A billboard advertisement for Rover
car manufacturers was the subject of a complaint to
the ASAI. The ad featured three women in bikinis and
a man in a white suit on the deck of a yacht with a
Rover 75 on the quayside. Complainants stated that was
demeaning and offensive to women and depicted women
as something men could purchase along with the car and
yacht. The advertisers stated that the objective was
to present the idea of the Rover 75 as being luxurious
but yet affordable. The visuals were intended as a spoof
of advertisements from the 1960s and 1970s.
|
|
Comment:
|
The complaint was upheld.
The Code on Advertising Standards requires that
ads contain nothing likely to cause grave or widespread
offence. It also requires ads to respect the principle
of equality of men and women and the dignity of all
persons. The Complaints Committee noted the point that
the ad was intended as a spoof of the 1960s and
1970s form of advertising but stated that such
ads were no longer acceptable due to adverse reactions
from the public.
|
|
4.
|
|
|
Topic:
|
Cinema Advertisement
|
|
Who:
|
Advertising Standards Authority of Ireland
|
|
When:
|
April 2002
|
|
Where:
|
Ireland
|
|
What happened:
|
An objection was received by the ASAI
to the showing of two advertisements for Guinness at
an afternoon showing of Lord of the Rings. The complainant
stated that the ads were inappropriate as the rating
for the film was PG (Parental Guidance)
and she was accompanied by two children aged 10 and
11. The advertisers responded that Lord of the Rings
was not a film specifically made for children and it
was not felt that the ads targeted children in any way.
It stated that the Cinema Advertising Association (CAA)
has an Alcohol Film Panel which ensures that ads for
alcohol are only shown where the average age of 75%
of the audience is 18 or over. The CAA had compared
this film to Star Wars: Episode One and felt that the
target market was adults who would first have encountered
the work as a child. In addition they had now taken
into account the proportion of children attending the
film and had therefore withdrawn all ads featuring alcohol
from being shown during this film.
|
|
Comment:
|
The complaint was not
upheld. The ASAI Code of Advertising Standards
required that ads for alcoholic drinks should not be
targeted at young people. In addition under the new
ASAI Code alcohol advertisements should not be placed
in media primarily intended for children. Advertisers
are also required to take account of the projected age
profile of the audience. The ASAI Committee however
acknowledged that films can sometimes appeal to an audience
outside the anticipated age group. It noted that the
ads were no longer being shown during the film and would
not be shown during either of the two projected sequels.
|
|
5.
|
|
|
Topic:
|
Billboard Advertisement
|
|
Who:
|
Advertising Standards Authority of Ireland
|
|
When:
|
February 2002
|
|
Where:
|
Ireland
|
|
What happened:
|
An objection was received to two poster
advertisements for WKD vodka. The first one showed a
pair of feet enclosed within two other pairs of feet
and then to the side a bottle of WKD Vodka with the
wording Have you got a WKD side? The second
poster showed an X-Ray of a pelvis with a ring piercing
below the pelvic bone and again a bottle of WKD Vodka
and the same wording. The complaint was that the posters
had serious sexual implications and caused offence.
The advertisers responded by saying
that the ads were supposed to be a little irreverent
and fun. They were the kind of thoughts their target
drinkers found amusing and they were attempting to associate
the products personality with that of the
target drinkers. The poster of the feet could be seen
as people hugging, dancing or just standing up. The
piercing was a lifestyle statement as body piercing
was increasingly popular amongst young people.
|
|
Comment:
|
The complaint was upheld.
The ASAI Code requires that advertisements for
alcoholic drinks should not suggest any drink can contribute
towards sexual success or make the drinker more attractive
to the opposite sex. Having considered the response
of the advertisers the ASAI Complaints Committee concluded
that the advertisement featuring the three sets of feet
did contain a sexual inference and was particularly
unsuitable as it was a billboard advertisement and would
be seen by the public at large. It also considered
that a body piercing of the type implied in the second
poster normally carried sexual inferences. Both ads
were therefore likely to cause offence and were in contravention
of the Code.
|
|
6.
|
|
|
Legislation:
|
Public Health (Tobacco) Act, 2002
|
|
Topic:
|
Tobacco advertising, marketing and sponsorship
|
|
Who:
|
Department of Health
|
|
When:
|
March 2002
|
|
Where:
|
Ireland
|
|
What happened:
|
New legislation has been enacted in
Ireland providing for the regulation and control of
the sale, marketing and smoking of tobacco products.
A new office has been established, the Tobacco Control
Agency, which enforces the further prohibitions on the
advertising of tobacco products, including advertisements
for tobacco in foreign publications which are sold in
Ireland. The rules on sponsorship of events by tobacco
companies are now much more stringent and it is now
an offence to give financial assistance to a body in
return for tobacco advertising or promotion. Several
marketing practices are also prohibited including selling
cigarettes in packs less than 20 and selling confectionery
to children in shapes or packages which resemble cigarettes
or their packaging.
|
|
Comment:
|
The Act repeals legislation in Ireland
which was now becoming outdated, the Tobacco Products
(Control of Advertising, Sponsorship and Sales Promotion)
Act, 1978 and the Tobacco (Health Promotion and Protection)
Act, 1988. While it has been enacted it is due to officially
commence in late 2002.
|
|
7.
|
|
|
Legislation:
|
Solicitors (Amendment) Act, 2002
|
|
Who:
|
Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform
|
|
When:
|
April 2002
|
|
Where:
|
Ireland
|
|
What happened:
|
New legislation has been enacted regulating
advertising by solicitors in Ireland. The Act prohibits
advertisements by solicitors which are likely to bring
the profession into disrepute, is published in an inappropriate
location, reflects unfavourably on other solicitors,
refers to claims or possible claims for personal injuries,
or offers an inducement to people to contact the solicitor
in respect of such claims. Advertisements published
by solicitors cannot include more than the name, address
and contact details of the solicitor, the academic and
professional qualifications of the solicitor, any speciality
areas of legal services and details of any charges.
|
|
Comment:
|
The legislation was enacted in April
2002 and is due to commence in Autumn 2002. It provides
strict prohibitions on advertising by solicitors which
is now one of the most regulated professions in relation
to its advertisements.
|
|
8.
|
|
|
Litigation :
|
High Court
|
|
When:
|
March 2002
|
|
Where:
|
Ireland
|
|
What happened:
|
The High Court has reserved its Judgement
in a case brought against an airline, Ryanair, by a
woman who claimed she had contracted free flights for
life in 1988 when at the airport in London Ryanair told
her that she was their one millionth customer and that
she had won unlimited travel for herself and a companion
on any Ryanair flight for the rest of her life. There
was a film crew present and a presentation was made
to the Plaintiff. She was sent a written contract at
the time but this was returned unsigned as she did not
immediately wish to nominate a companion. She enjoyed
her free travel but in October 1997 when she sought
to fly to Glasgow she was informed that no seats were
available and was subsequently told that her free flights
were now being limited to 12 flights per year. The
Plaintiff claimed approximately €400,000 in damages
based on the actuarial value of the loss of free travel
for the rest of her life.
The Defendants argued that the Plaintiff
was seeking to turn into money a prize which she had
received entitling her to fly on a low cost airline
for the rest of her life and that there was no contract
with the Plaintiff who had merely received a gift.
As the trial commenced they unsuccessfully sought to
amend their defence to include a plea that the system
under which the prize was awarded was an unlicensed
lottery under the Gaming and Lotteries Act, 1956. Mr
Justice Kelly stated that this plea had traditionally
never been looked on in a very meritorious light because
it was not very meritorious. He also said it was not
a very attractive defence because it was an assertion
by the Defendant that it was guilty of a gaming activity
prohibited by law thereby involving itself in an illegal
activity. Later that day the Supreme Court also refused
the Defendants application to put a stay on Mr
Justice Kellys ruling not to permit Ryanair to
amend its defence as it could not hear an appeal from
a ruling by a High Court Judge while the case was still
at hearing.
|
|
Comment:
|
As stated earlier Judgement was reserved
in the case. We will keep you informed of any decision
watch this space!
|
|
|
|
|