Ads Banned Under New Junk Food Rules

Ads Banned Under New Junk Food Rules
Cadbury, Chewits and Squashies sweets have become the first companies to have online adverts banned under new rules targeting junk food ads for children. The Advertising Standards Authority said the companies did not do enough to prevent under-16s seeing the content.

New rules governing children’s advertising online came into force last July, adding to rules already in place for TV ads.

The adverts featured on the companies’ websites, apps or social media. In its ruling, ASA banned Cadbury’s use of a storybook titled The Tale Of The Great Easter Bunny on its website, which featured children hunting for eggs.

Chewits had four Facebook posts banned which featured Chewie the Chewitsaurus in a number of campaigns.

And a so-called advergame app called Squashies World, where players match pairs of Squashies by flicking them towards each other, was also banned.

Caroline Cerny of the Obesity Health Alliance said: “Whilst today’s rulings should be celebrated, the complaints demonstrate the blatant ways in which the food and drink industry attempts to exploit loopholes in the rules.”

ASA chief executive Guy Parker said: “The ban on HFSS [high in fat, salt or sugar] ads in children’s online media is working, but it’s important that we enforce it rigorously. These rulings show that we’re doing that and will help advertisers understand where we’re drawing the line.”

Mondelez, which owns Cadbury, said it would now “build upon our longstanding commitment to not market directly to children under the age of 16”.

Swizzels, which makes Squashies, said the advergame it created was not designed to appeal to children and did not “in any way” encourage children to eat sweets.

Chewits producer Cloetta said its Chewitsaurus was not “developed to target under-16s” and was instead targeted at “parents and young adults”.

Separately, YouTube star Zoella and Pointless Blog, run by her partner Alfie Dayes, were not found to have broken the ASA rules, after advertising the confectionary brand Ferrero.

The body found reasonable steps had been taken to target ads appropriately, and only a small portion of the the channel’s viewers were under-16.

 

Banks Could Have to Pay ‘billions’ More in PPI

Banks Could Have to Pay ‘billions’ More in PPI
People who were not mis-sold PPI policies may be able to claim billions of pounds more in compensation, following a court ruling in Manchester. Christopher and Joanne Doran were awarded all the sales commission they paid plus interest for a policy, a total of £17,345. They are the first people to have all of their commission payments refunded for a legitimately sold policy.

However anyone wanting to make similar claims would have to go to court.

The commission is the money paid to firms who sold the policies to consumers on behalf of the insurers.

Under the Financial Conduct Authority’s existing guidelines, consumers who were sold their policies legitimately may still be entitled to claim back commission which is deemed excessive. This means that policy-holders can reclaim any amount of commission that was in excess of 50% of the premium.

Around 1.2 million complaints have proved successful under this, the so-called Plevin rule, out of the total of 13 million PPI pay-outs.

But the judge in Manchester ruled that the Dorans were entitled to receive the whole of the commission – in their case 76% of the premium – plus interest.

Paragon Personal Finance, which lost the case, is deciding whether to appeal against the ruling. Lawyers have claimed the ruling is a new precedent that could mean that banks are liable for another £18bn in pay-outs. However, sources in the City were sceptical about that figure.

Shares in Lloyds Bank – which has had to pay the largest share of PPI mis-selling claims – fell in early trading, but have since recovered.

So far banks and insurance companies have had to pay out a total of £30bn to compensate consumers. Under the FCA’s deadline, all claims have to be lodged before the end of August next year.