Ad description
A radio ad for a solicitor's practice. The voice-over said, "So you injured yourself at work. Weren't [sic] your fault. What's stopping you making a claim? Ah, your employer, yeah? How are they going to react? Thing is, you're not claiming against your employer but against their insurance company. That's why they've got insurance. So stop worrying and contact Paul Rooney Solicitors. They'll deal with everything so you don't have to. Text Paul to XXXXX. That's Paul to XXXXX. Paul Rooney Solicitors. You know the name so make the claim."
Issue
17 complainants objected that the ad was misleading, because it implied that employers would face no financial detriment if an employee made an injury claim, when they understood that premiums would rise and other related costs may be incurred.
Response
Paul Rooney Solicitors LLP said the ad informed employees that if they pursued a claim their employers would not face a financial detriment as a result as the claim would be settled by the insurance company. They said the ad simply set out the fact that employers were required to have insurance to cover workplace accidents and although it was widely known that making a claim on insurance may impact on premiums, this would not always the case.
The RACC said that the ad merely informed consumers that they could claim against their employer's insurance. They said whilst the complainants' assertion may have been right, the ad did not need to imply or state that an employer's premiums would have been affected. Furthermore, the ad made the point that employers had insurance policies that covered risks, so employees need not worry about making a claim.
Assessment
Not upheld
The ASA acknowledged that an employer's premiums may be affected by a claim but this depended on the individual circumstances of each insurance policy which could not have been covered in a short radio ad. The ad focused on reassuring employees that an employer would not face the claim payout themselves rather than potential future costs incurred by an employer if an employee made an injury claim. Because the ad was focused on reducing employee concerns, not the impact on the employer, we concluded the ad was not misleading.
We investigated the ad under BCAP Code rules
3.1
3.1
Advertisements must not materially mislead or be likely to do so.
3.2
3.2
Advertisements must not mislead consumers by omitting material information. They must not mislead by hiding material information or presenting it in an unclear, unintelligible, ambiguous or untimely manner.
Material information is information that consumers need in context to make informed decisions about whether or how to buy a product or service. Whether the omission or presentation of material information is likely to mislead consumers depends on the context, the medium and, if the medium of the advertisement is constrained by time or space, the measures that the advertiser takes to make that information available to consumers by other means.
(Misleading advertising) and
3.9
3.9
Broadcasters must hold documentary evidence to prove claims that the audience is likely to regard as objective and that are capable of objective substantiation. The ASA may regard claims as misleading in the absence of adequate substantiation.
(Substantiation) but did not find it in breach.
Action
No further action necessary.
