ASA Ruling on Amazon EU Sarl
Amazon EU Sarl
5 Rue Plaetis
30 January 2013
Number of complaints:
A TV ad for the Kindle Fire featured images of the product in use whilst the voice-over stated "We're the people with the smile on the box. We're the re-inventers of normal. So when we bring you the new Kindle Fire HD you should know that normal is going to change, again. With a stunning HD screen, HD camera, dual speaker Dolby sound and access to 22 million songs, apps, games, movies, books and more. Hey normal, take that. The new Kindle Fire HD".
The complainant challenged whether the claim that product came with an "HD Camera" was misleading because they understood the device had a front facing camera for the use as a webcam but that it did not take photographs.
Amazon EU Sarl (Amazon) stated that the voice-over in the ad stated the word "HD camera" at the point where a couple were shown participating in a video call with a woman and that this showcased the device's front-facing camera, which could be used for video calling. They believed the likely effect on consumers watching the TV ad would be to understand that the camera on the Kindle Fire HD device is a front facing camera that could be used for making video calls. They stated that despite this, there were free apps available for users to download to the device that would allow the users to take photographs with the front-facing camera.
Clearcast re-iterated that when the claim about the HD camera was made in the ad, it was being used to make video calls (as the device allowed users to make free VoIP calls) and said there were no shots of the device being used to take photographs. They also confirmed that free apps were available for consumers to download which allowed the front facing camera to be used to take and then edit photographs.
The ASA noted the reference to "HD camera" in the voice-over appeared at the same time that the ad featured an image of a video call taking place and considered most viewers would understand that the claim "HD camera" related to that specific function, which was integrated into the device. We therefore considered that the ad was not misleading.
We investigated the ad under BCAP Code rules 3.1, .3.2 and 3.3 (Misleading advertising) but did not find it in breach.
No further action required