ASA Adjudication on Metrodome Group plc

Ad

An email promoting the film 'Shifty'.

On visiting the website for the film, consumers were presented with the option to "Stitch up a mate" by entering a friend's email address. The website stated that the recipient would not see their email address.

An email was subsequently sent to that friend from the address communitydrugsteam@ukgov.org.uk. The subject headline of the email stated "CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION" and was followed by a reference number that included the recipient's name. The email was in the form of a letter personally addressed to the recipient, and text at the top of the letter stated "N.B. A copy of this notice has been sent to the postal address at which you are currently registered under the electoral roll".

Further text in the body of the email stated "In a recent operation a subject was arrested with a quantity of class A drugs in their possession. During the post arrest interview the suspect supplied your name to us as a habitual narcotics user. As such you are now at risk of a criminal prosecution based on the information supplied. However, as part of the Community Drugs Team initiative we are attempting to work with and help people who may have issues with drug use. Under this new initiative it may be possible to prevent further investigation if you are willing to participate in the newly launched ACT AGAINST DRUGS campaign, and submit to counselling and weekly drug testing. If you wish to participate please click on the link below to arrange a date, time and location for your initial interview and first weekly test [the website www.community-drugs-team.org.uk was given]. If you feel information has been wrongly supplied or wish to appeal against this notice click on the link below [the same website address was given]. If you fail to respond to this email within 7 days of receipt please be aware that this will then become an official matter and there will be a strong likelihood of criminal investigation. It is our aim to help you in the most discreet way possible, however we will require your full co-operation". The letter was signed on behalf of the "London Community Drugs Team".

When the recipient clicked on either of the links in the email they were directed to the website for the film, which stated "You have just been stitched up by your friend. If you can't spot a shifty email when you see one... To stitch up your own friend click here".

Issue

The complainant, who received the e-mail at their work address and was concerned that the e-mail could be threat to their employment, challenged whether:

1. the ad was distressing and irresponsible, because it implied that the recipient had been involved in the use of illegal drugs, and

2. the ad was misleading, because it appeared to be an official communication and did not make clear that it was marketing material.

3. The ASA challenged whether the approach used by the advertisers breached the database rules because recipients had not given explicit consent to receive marketing by email.

CAP Code

Response

Metrodome Group plc (Metrodome) apologised that the ad had caused the complainant distress. They said they had not realised that the ad breached any codes of practice, and they explained that they had changed the ad within a few days of launching it in order to soften the campaign for fear of causing offence. They explained that the amended ad included text that explicitly stated that it was a hoax e-mail, and they submitted a copy of that ad. Metrodome agreed to withdraw the "Stitch up a mate" e-mail function from their website once they had been notified of the complaint.

Assessment

1. Upheld

The ASA noted Metrodome's response. We considered, however, that the ad's claims that the recipient was involved in illegal drugs, had been named in a police interview and was at risk of criminal prosecution, as well as the implication that the e-mail had been sent by an official body, could cause alarm and undue distress to some recipients. We also considered that further distress could be caused to recipients were the e-mail to be seen by their employer or friends and family. We noted that Metrodome had amended the ad to include text at the end of the email that stated "If you are still reading this e-mail please be aware this is a hoax sent to you by one of your friends". However, we considered that that sentence was not sufficient to mitigate the possible distress caused by the overall impression of the ad. We acknowledged that Metrodome had withdrawn the e-mail function from their website. However, because we considered that the ad was irresponsible and could cause serious distress, we concluded that that approach should not be used again.

On this point the ad breached CAP Code clauses 2.2 (Principles) and 9.1 (Fear and distress).

2. Upheld

We noted that the email appeared to have been sent from the address communitydrugsteam@ukgov.org.uk, and that references to the Community Drugs Team were repeated throughout the email. We also noted that the e-mail contained a reference number that included the recipient's name and stated that a copy of the e-mail had been sent to the address at which the recipient was registered on the electoral role. We considered that that approach could mislead recipients into believing that the email was a communication from a government body or other official organisation. We noted that there was nothing in the body copy of the e-mail, or its subject line and sent address, that identified the email as marketing material, and whilst we acknowledged that recipients who clicked on the community-drugs-team link provided in the e-mail were taken to the film's website where the hoax was revealed, we considered that the ad should have been clearly identified as marketing material without the need to open the email or click on the link. Because it was not we concluded that the ad was misleading.

On this point the ad breached CAP Code clauses 7.1 (Truthfulness) and 22.1 (Recognising marketing communications and identifying marketers).

3. Upheld

We noted that the film's website did not seek to obtain the explicit consent of the recipient to receive e-mail marketing, or ask the friend who initiated the hoax e-mail to confirm that they had the consent of the recipient. We also noted that the website stated that the sender's e-mail address would be withheld, and we were concerned that it would not be made clear to recipients how and when their e-mail address had been obtained. We considered that Metrodome should have taken steps to satisfy themselves that the recipient was happy to receive e-mail marketing from them, and because they had not we concluded that the ad was in breach.

On this point the ad breached CAP Code clause 43.4c (Database practice).  

Action

The ad must not appear again in its current form. We told Metrodome to make clear that future ads were marketing material and to ensure that they had the explicit consent of the recipient to receive marketing by e-mail in future.

Adjudication of the ASA Council (Non-broadcast)