Burger ad falls foul again

An advertisement for Carl's Jr, already banned from TV screens, has been deemed inappropriate for online use.

The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) received a complaint after the ad - featuring two women in bikini-tops and cropped shorts competing against each other at the "Memphis BBQ cookoff" - appeared on the website for Four OnDemand.

Despite both Restaurant Brands, the licence holder for Carl's Jr, and MediaWorks arguing the advertisement was placed ahead of programmes targeted at the 18-49 age group, the board ruled it breached several advertising principles.

"After viewing the advertisement, the majority of the complaints board noted a number of closeup shots of the skimpily clad women were shown. In particular, a closeup showed rivulets of perspiration on one of the women's stomach while another showed a woman wiping sauce from her breast area."

The level of sexual appeal was too great for an unrelated product.

In a separate decision, a TV ad promoting a skincare product based on "snail slime" that claimed to repair skin cells has been banned after being deemed misleading.

The ad for Celltone said it could be used on areas of skin that suffered from blemishes, stretch marks, scars, wrinkles and spots, with its rejuvenating properties giving the ability to repair skin.

But a viewer took offence at the claims, complaining to the ASA that the statements were misleading.

In its decision, the board agreed with the complainant as Celltone's marketer, Brand Developers, was unable to provide evidence to substantiate its claims.

Brand Developers argued the entire market for skincare, anti-ageing and skin regeneration products existed in an "overwhelming aura of hyperbole".

"In this environment, the claims for Celltone are quite modest."

The advert said Celltone was based on "snail slime" that tests had shown to contain allantoin, a compound that allowed snails to heal tissue and restore broken shells.

Brand Developers denied any misleading claims, as the testimonials were all from bona fide customers.

"To uphold this complaint would result in half the cosmetic advertising on television having to be removed."

But the board disagreed, stating the existence of scientific tests was not sufficient to substantiate anything, and the advert could mislead consumers.