Ad description
A website, via-pet.co.uk, for a dog breed certification company Via-pet seen in March 2017, included text which stated “The VIA-PET Pit bull Exemption certificate will save tens of thousands of innocent dogs from execution … Can be used legally in court or with any agency”.
Issue
The complainant, who understood that whether or not a dog was a government banned type depended on what it looked like rather than its breed, challenged whether the ad was misleading and could be substantiated.
Response
Via-Pet did not respond to the ASA’s enquiries.
Assessment
The ASA was concerned by Via-Pet’s lack of response and apparent disregard for the Code, and ruled that they had breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rule 1.7 1.7 Any unreasonable delay in responding to the ASA's enquiries will normally be considered a breach of the Code. (Unreasonable delay). We reminded them of their responsibility to respond promptly to our enquiries and told them to do so in the future.
Upheld
We considered consumers would interpret the ad to mean that by obtaining a certificate from the advertiser a dog would not be regarded as a government banned type by the Courts or would be able to be placed on the Index of Exempted Dogs. We noted that the official government guidance said whether a dog was a banned type depended on what it looked like rather than its breed and that this was assessed on a case by case basis by the Court. We considered that as the advertiser’s certificate was based on genetic testing it would only ever be able to confirm the breed, which they had not demonstrated was a consideration for the Courts when making a determination about whether or not a dog was a banned type. We therefore concluded that the ad was misleading.
The ad breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1 3.1 Marketing communications must not materially mislead or be likely to do so. (Misleading Advertising) and 3.7 3.7 Before distributing or submitting a marketing communication for publication, marketers must hold documentary evidence to prove claims that consumers are 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).
Action
The ad must not appear again in its current form. We told Via-Pet to ensure their future advertising did not misleadingly imply their certificates would ensure a dog was not regarded as a government banned type. We referred the matter to the CAP Compliance team.
