Compliance with marketing codes

WPP companies produce thousands of campaigns for clients every year. We expect all our companies to comply with marketing regulations and industry codes of practice. However, a small number of campaigns do give rise to complaints. We track and report upheld complaints against work by WPP companies.

This table shows a representative sample of infringements identified and publicly reported by regulatory authorities and those reported through our internal data collection system.

Date	WPP Company	Country	Regulatory Organisation	Type	Ruling
2010	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.
2010	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.
2010	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.
2010	Ogilvy & Mather	UK	ASA	Press	An advertisement was found to be untruthful as it wrongly implied that a company's products were hand-stitched.
2010	Ogilvy & Mather	New Zealand	ASA	TV	Health claims in a milk advertisement could not be substantiated.
2010	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.
2010	Ogilvy & Mather	Ireland	ASAI	Press	Advertisement was deemed misleading as the car featured was not related to the price stated in the advert offer
2009	Cheetham Bell JWT	UK	ASA	Radio	Advertisement was deemed to be misleading as it made exaggerated claims about risks of asbestos exposure and did not make clear that calculations used to make the claims were based on estimates.
2009	Hill and Knowlton	UK	ASA	Press	The advertisement claimed children should drink six to eight 250ml glasses of fluids a day. This was misleading as it implied the claim was generally accepted, whereas there was no concrete evidence to support the claim. The ad could not appear in its current form.
2009	Grey	UK	ASA	TV	Advertisement was deemed to be misleading as a claim that all readers of a magazine would recommend a product was based on a survey that included a small number of participants. The survey was also judged to have been structured to encourage positive responses.
2009	Grey	UK	ASA	TV	Advertisement was deemed to be misleading as the claim that most readers of a magazine would recommend the product was insufficiently robust.
2009	Grey	UK	ASA	TV	Advertisement made a claim that could not be substantiated. Additional clarification was added in order to run the advertisement.
2009	Ogilvy & Mather	India	ASCI	Press	Advertisement was deemed to be non-compliant with rules relating to alcohol advertising.
2009	Ogilvy & Mather	India	ASCI	TV	Advertisement showed a motorbike being driven dangerously and the cautionary message was deemed not to be adequately readable.
2009	Ogilvy & Mather	India	ASCI	TV	The terms and conditions in the advertisement were deemed not to be readable.
2009	Ogilvy & Mather	UK	ASA	TV	The advertisement was deemed to be misleading as the claim that "nothing" worked faster than the product advertised could not be substantiated.
2009	Ogilvy & Mather	UK	ASA	Press	Advertisement made a comparative claim that could not be supported and an unsubstantiated claim that the product would support all children's immune systems. The ad also used graphic illustrations to demonstrate the effectiveness of the product that could not be substantiated.
2009	Ogilvy & Mather	UK	ASA	Press	The advertisement's headline offered a two-for-one offer but this was contradicted on the price chart that gave more details of the deal.