We expect all our companies to comply with marketing regulations and industry codes of practice. However, out of the many thousands of campaigns our companies produce each year, a small number do give rise to complaints that are upheld by authorities.
We track and report upheld complaints against work by WPP companies but our data is not complete. The table (below) shows a representative sample of infringements identified and publicly reported by regulatory authorities or through our internal data collection system during 2010.
Representative infringements in 2010
|WPP company||Country||Regulatory organisation||Type||Ruling|
|Ogilvy & Mather||Ireland||ASAI||Press||Advertisement was deemed misleading as the car featured was not related to the price stated in the advertisement offer.|
|Grey||Israel||ASA||TV||An advertisement was found to be misleading because it exaggerated the likely amount that customers could win through an online gambling site.|
|Ogilvy & Mather||New Zealand||ASA||TV||Health claims in a milk advertisement could not be substantiated.|
|Ogilvy & Mather||UK||ASA||Press||An advertisement was found to be untruthful as it wrongly implied that a company’s products were hand-stitched.|
|Ogilvy & Mather||UK||ASA||TV||An advertisement was found to be misleading because it claimed a product was the first of its type, when a previous model had similar features.|
|Ogilvy & Mather||UK||ASA||Press, Radio and TV||An advertisement was deemed misleading because it made claims about an expected financial saving that couldn’t be substantiated.|
|RKCR/Y&R||UK||ASA||TV||An advertisement was found to be misleading because it contained claims about policing levels that couldn’t be substantiated.|