In its recently released decision, the board said the advertisement was misleading and not socially responsible in the context of a global pandemic. The advertisement also raised issues of social responsibility and truthful presentation.
“Complainants were concerned the advertisement contained misleading information regarding mask use; the flyer was delivered where it was unwanted, it was distressing for those who have lost family members to Covid-19 or who are vulnerable to the disease, and it encouraged people to be dishonest, in order to qualify for mask exemption,” it noted.
The board said this information was also contrary to established health advice.
Voices for Freedom said they did not believe the ASA had jurisdiction over hand-delivered flyers and defended the advertisement, saying it was substantially a reprint of the original mask flyer, which was ruled not upheld.
VFF said each of the eight statements listed on the Spring Mask Flyer had been substantiated, information about this was available on their website. They referred to the following statement in the precedent decision “none of the six statements made in the advertisement were misleading because they had been adequately substantiated in the context of advocacy advertising”.
The advertiser said in introducing a new approach to ruling on Covid-19 advertisements, the board had created a situation where any advertising related to Covid-19 that goes against the Government narrative is unlikely to ever be considered socially responsible.
The ASA Complaints Board ruled the complaint upheld and the advertisement not to be used again.
