As Covid-19 was, and is,
dominating headlines, the ARB announced further changes this month, in its
quiet re-emergence as the regulator for advertising and packaging complaints
and disputes in South Africa. Stephen Kotze, another
stalwart of the organisation, sent out a communication recently announcing that
the Codes have been changed and should be consulted.
The ARB published 9 decisions in 2018, over 150 in 2019 and there has been healthy activity in 2020. Most of the decisions are consumer complaints but there have been several competitor complaint rulings including by the Appeals Committee, indicating renewed trust and business confidence albeit not yet at the same levels as its predecessor, yet.
These changes outlined by Stephen in his email are:
“Significant broad changes include:
· The reference to “ASA” has been changed to
“ARB” throughout, and the list of members in the preface has been updated;
· All the Guidelines have been removed. This is
because they were non-binding and had fallen out of use.
· Large parts of Section III have been removed.
Again, they had fallen out of use and reflected historical issues that are no
longer relevant. It was felt that in so far as many sections were concerned,
the issue was adequately regulated under Clause 4.2.1 of Section II which deals
with misleading claims.
· Appendix A (Alcohol) and Appendix B
(Cosmetics) have been completely updated in line with the changes brought by
their respective industry bodies.
· Certain Appendixes have been removed, due to
the relevant interest group no longer being involved in self-regulation and the
area regulated no longer being a live issue.
· The Procedural Guide has been tightened and
rearranged to reflect actual procedures, and to read in a more logical manner.
Turning to specific areas
of interest:
· Clause 14 of Section III is an attempt to
regulate the issue of potions, lotions and spells that are sold to vulnerable
consumers. Readers are warned that compliance in this area is going to take
time and education. The clause reads:
“14.1 Advertisements for
products or treatments with unproven supernatural properties including those
for achieving health, wealth or happiness should only appear in media where the
following disclaimer clearly appears, legibly and boldly: The claims made [on
this page/in this programme/ on this poster/ on this billboard] have not been
scientifically proven. The advertised outcomes claimed are not guaranteed.
14.2 The onus for
compliance with this clause lies both with the advertiser and the medium carrying
the advertising.
14.3 The following media
specific requirements apply:
• In the case of print,
the disclaimer will appear in a frame around either the advertisement or the
page that carries the advertisement.
• In the case of
television, the disclaimer will appear on a clearly legible banner for the
duration of the commercial.
• In the case of radio,
the disclaimer must be read before the commercial.
• In the case of
out-of-home, the disclaimer will appear along the bottom of the billboard or
poster in a clearly legible format.
• In media that is not
specified, the disclaimer must be applied in a reasonable manner that would
ensure that the reasonable consumer is aware of it.”
· Also in Section III, we see a new provision
for the telecommunications sector:
15.3 Any direct or indirect claims of Mobile Network superiority
must be properly couched to ensure transparency and avoid ambiguity.
15.3.1 When parity or
superiority is claimed or implied in relation to real-world network
performance, certain mandatory criteria apply.
15.3.2 when parity or
superiority is claimed or implied in relation to subjective measures such as,
inter alia, consumer preference, such claims should be phrased in a manner that
provides instant clarity. Words such as “voted the best” or “most liked” are
recommended for this purpose. Such claims would remain subject to
substantiation as per Clause 4.1 of Section II of the Code.
15.3.3 it will not be acceptable to provide clarity or context
by means of body copy or disclaimers when the initial claim is not suitably
qualified or contextualised.
15.3.4 In the event that the entity relied on to substantiate
such claims as contemplated in clauses 30.3.1 and 30.3.2 above issues a new
report, affected advertisers must remove all redundant claims within the
deadlines stipulated in the Code. The requirements of Clause 30.3.4 will not
apply if the affected advertiser retains its position of superiority / parity
in the newest report.
· In terms of Procedure, we need to highlight a
major change to the time periods. Whereas before, in a Final Appeal, the
Appellant had 20 days to appeal and the Respondent had 10 days to respond, both
parties now have 20 days. The relevant change is to Clause 12.8 of the
Procedural Guide.
· Clause 7.3 of the Procedural Guide now offers
important clarity: Nothing in this clause, or in Clause 3.3 of Section II,
must be read as implying that the ARB may seek to enforce regulations or laws.
This task falls on the relevant regulator. The ARB may only enforce the Code.
· Clause 8.2.2 of the Procedural Guide now
allows that ALL responses are due within 5 days. This is a change from 3 days
for competitor matters, and 2 days for substantiation.
· Clause 8.5.1 of the Procedural Guide now
formally empowers the Directorate to “Attempt to resolve the matter between the
parties without the need for a formal decision”.
· In response to a spate of interlocutory
procedures being invoked in recent matters, the following clauses have been
added to the Procedural Guide:
9.13 While
the parties are entitled to bring any interlocutory applications appropriate in
order to enforce their rights, parties are reminded that self-regulation is, by
its nature, intended to be quick, cheap and solution-driven. Parties who lodge
interlocutory applications merely to frustrate the process are acting contrary
to the spirit of the Code. Parties may, at the discretion of the Chair of the
AAC or FAC, as relevant, be penalised for this behavior by forfeiting the
refundable portion of their appeal fee.
9.14 Interlocutory decisions made by the Head of the
Directorate or the Chair of the AAC are not appealable."
For more info on the ASA and ARB click on the search tab on the blog.
