FACEBOOK DEFAMATION if proven as publisher

Another front opens up on the growing backlash against the American social media behemoths...

The electioneering and data gathering scandal, EU data privacy laws (GDPR), the UK government apparently seeking tougher child protection, the press campaign to have Facebook (and Google) treated like publishers with the regulations that brings and to pay for their content...

Now comes an attack on their revenues, a defamation case brought by a businessman whose name was used in fake ads despite his attempts to get Facebook to take them down. The ad regulator, ASA, has no real sway here, it is once again Facebook self-regulating itself as it sees fit. There is a clear parallel with the recent Google scandal over its placing of racist, extreme right-wing ads.

The pressure grows to act on GAFA's protected status as American companies (the US safe haven laws) not governed by national regulation (never mind taxation!) in the many territories it operates in.

Martin Lewis sues Facebook over fake ads with his name https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/apr/22/martin-lewis-sues-facebook-over-fake-ads-with-his-name?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Blogger

WEB 2.0 Celebs sponsor posts face ASA and FTC crackdown

So the wild wild web can be regulated...

The UK's ASA and US's FTC are beefing up their enforcement of recent rules that insist Instagrammers and the like use specific hashtags to make it clear when they're being paid to praise or highlight brands. A useful point, along with the BBFC ratings, to look at in the context of the music industry...

Guardian: Social media stars face crackdown over money from brands.

MacDonalds TV ad provokes 100 ASA complaints

Not a detailed case study, but a useful reference to show that protection of children is a key theme with all media regulators - and that it's the Twitter response rather than the formal complaints that has led media reporting in, awareness of and interest in this story.

The ASA hadn't decided whether to investigate at the time of writing

McDonald's apologises over ad 'exploiting child bereavement'.

ADS AUSTRALIA Fanta app targeting tweens banned

Australia has a voluntary self-regulation code on marketing junk food to under 12s, part of its response to the obesity crisis sweeping the Western world.

The contrast with the UK is stark: the Tory-led coalition government rather preposterously set up an advisory panel on food health regulation dominated by the food industry. Naturally enough, this has seen little movement on marketing or producing junk food.

So to see major corporations pull an expensive TV ad and app campaign is an intriguing example of seemingly robust self-regulation.

Fanta ad and app pulled for breaching guidelines on advertising to children.

A TV commercial and an iPhone app for the soft drink Fanta has been pulled after the Advertising Standards Board deemed its cartoon-style “Fanta Crew” characters were directed at children as young as nine. 

Under the self-regulation of advertising rules, junk food may not be advertised directly to children under 12. One 450ml bottle of Fanta has about 14 teaspoons of sugar. 

The commercial featured animated characters known as the Fanta Crew at the beach and riding rollercoasters while talking about the great taste of Fanta which to them is like an “awesome ride”, a “bubble explosion” and makes them feel like “busting out to my favourite beats”. 

The Fanta Fruit Slam 2 app and the Fanta “Tastes Like” TV ad were designed to sell an unhealthy product which “should not be promoted to children,” Jane Martin from the public health advocacy group, Obesity Policy Coalition, said on Wednesday.

ASA enforce OfCom rules on alcohol, slam MTV

Having generally not blogged on ASA, along come two useful rulings in one day - the rejection of complaints about the 'beach body' ad (albeit with some restrictions imposed), and now this: MTV sharply criticised for the high proportion of alcohol ads during the Geordie Shore slot.

That oh-so-familiar theme of protection of children is to the fore once more...

MTV argued that the show is "clearly" an adult show, but ASA data rather straightforwardly contradicts this by revealing the high proportion of under-18s forming part of the audience.

Of course the brands advertising their alcoholic goods in this slot would deny this - it is outlawed after all! - but access to under-18s is surely an attractive element of the audience for these advertisers? Furthermore, it would be odd if MTV hadn't provided their ad sales agency with detailed demographics of the audience; advertisers, and the buying agencies who negotiate fees and place their ads, will always want to know who they're spending money to target - if you're selling a stairlift, retirement homes or pensions you're hardly likely to want to spend money on ads during a youth-oriented show!!!

Read the full article - link below the line.

ASA Beach Body Ready ad cleared; inoffensive???

Interesting case that sparked a large petition, and a defacement campaign that went viral - but the advertising regulator the ASA ruled the ads were within the rules and so needn't be removed.

Protein World's 'beach body ready' ads do not objectify women, says watchdog.

Ads/ASA/Children: Rihanna perfume ad ban

Based on a single complaint, the ad for Rogue, a perfume line, featuring a naked Rihanna has been given a 'restricted placing' order by the ASA. It is only permitted to be placed anywhere where children are unlikely to encounter it.
You can judge for yourself (NB: deemed unsuitable for under-15s) by clicking read more below, or here to read the Guardian article on this.

Finding ASA/BBFC case studies

FIND A BBFC + ASA CASE STUDY

You can simply browse the BBFC site, or try book indexes, googling something like ‘BBFC controvers*’. These links will also help you to find fruitful examples to explore –several of which we’ve already briefly discussed in lessons; BBFC:

http://www.techradar.com/news/video/bbfc-re-evaluates-film-classifications-after-manhunt-2-saga-610248

http://www.littlewhitelies.co.uk/features/articles/100-years-of-the-bbfc-17750

http://www.bbfc.co.uk/education-resources/student-guide/age-ratings/controversial-decisions

http://nukesandknives.blogspot.co.uk/2012/04/films-controversy-and-bbfc-best-of.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/special_report/1999/02/99/e-cyclopedia/512685.stm

http://www.theguardian.com/film/2001/mar/01/artsfeatures.filmcensorship

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/film/film-news/5586289/Controversial-Antichrist-film-with-uncut-scenes-of-torture-and-pornography.html

ASA: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-18243577

http://www.ctc.org.uk/news/advertising-watchdog%E2%80%99s-helmet-ruling-threatens-promotion-of-normal-cycling

http://www.thirdsector.co.uk/news/1291104/advertising-watchdog-clears-controversial-pancreatic-cancer-action-adverts/

http://www.theguardian.com/media/asa

http://www.businessinsider.com/american-apparel-ads-banned-in-the-uk-2013-4?op=1

http://www.marketingmagazine.co.uk/article/1194287/asa-reiterates-ban-controversial-peta-ad

http://www.marketingmagazine.co.uk/article/1192672/brewdog-those-asa-mother-fckers-no-jurisdiction-us

http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=f213ab55-484a-481b-bc9d-7dd708869f91

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/8003579/Controversial-ice-cream-ads-to-be-placed-on-Popes-route.html

PCC's third party policy

This remains an area of great controversy. See http://blogs.journalism.co.uk/editors/2009/10/19/pcc-and-the-third-party-issue/ for example. They frequently refuse to rule on cases if the person/people directly effected do not complain.

OfCom and the ASA have no such rule, though OfCom in particular will not automatically rule on any complaint, and have followed in the steps of its predecessor, the ITC, in condemning press-organised write-in campaigns such as that over Jerry Springer the Opera (the ITC condemned the Daily Mail's gross hypocrisy in its reportage of the Brass Eye 'Paedogeddon Special'). The June 2004 ASA ruling on a Rihanna perfume (Rogue) ad was prompted by a single third party complaint, for example.

Its questionable whether the person involved is always aware or even competent to complain, but this remains the assumption

They fear being inundated as an organisation with just £2m annual budget.

The PCC don't want to be automatically forced by pressure groups to get into dialogue/judgements 

The PCC publish a list of FAQs, including this: