United Kingdom Country Report

European Initiative:	Proposal for a Council Regulation Concerning Sales Promotions in the Internal Market.
Topic:	Sales promotions.
Who:	The European Commission.
When:	3 September 2001
What happened:	Draft Regulations have been proposed by the European Commission to harmonise the laws on sales promotions throughout the European Union. The draft Regulations harmonise local European laws in three key areas. Firstly, the draft Regulations state that all promoters must provide specific information to consumers, such as the duration of the offer. Secondly, the draft Regulations seek to enhance the consumer's right of redress against the promoter. Finally, the draft Regulations set out special requirements to protect the interests of children.
Comments:	If the Draft Regulations come into force, they will affect the law in the United Kingdom in two key ways. Firstly, sales promoters will be required to provide a significant amount of new information to consumers. In relation to competitions, for example, sales promoters will have to disclose to consumers the value and nature of the prize and the estimated odds of winning. Secondly, the Regulations will affect the UK's Lotteries and Amusement Act 1976 (the "Act"). Under the Regulations, promoters will be entitled to conduct certain "lotteries", under which customers who buy a product are given the opportunity to enter into a draw. This practice is currently prohibited by the Act, as interpreted by case law, unless an alternative free entry route is also provided.
Topic:	Television commercials of very short duration and subliminal advertising.
Where:	United Kingdom.
When:	July 2001.
What happened:	The Broadcast Advertising Clearance Centre ("BACC") was called upon to determine whether a Sony television commercial, which was of one second duration, was in breach of the Independent Television Commission's Code of Advertising Standards and Practice (the "Code"). Rule 7 of the Code stipulates that advertisements must not use "images of very brief duration" to exploit the possibility of "influencing the minds of members of the audience without their being aware or fully aware of what has been done".
Decision:	The BACC concluded that the Sony advertisement did not breach the Code, primarily because the Sony advertisement was clearly branded. According to the BACC, the advertisement did not fall within the definition of a subliminal advertisement, because subliminal advertisements influence the subconscious, without conveying a clearly-defined message.
Comments:	Given the BACC's approach to advertisements of very short duration, they may soon become very common on British television screens.
Topic:	Outdoor advertising and flyposting campaigns.
Who:	Local authorities throughout the UK.
When:	May, June and August 2001.
What happened:	The insurance company Royal & Sun Alliance (RSA) was threatened with legal action by Westminster City Council in relation to a flyposting campaign that had recently been undertaken on behalf of the company. The Council gave RSA 48 hours to remove the advertisements, and advised the company that if it did not do so, it would face prosecution. Westminster City Council has also recently threatened to take action against Accantia Health & Beauty in relation to forensic-style dead body outlines, which the company had drawn on footpaths throughout London. Like the RSA, that company was also required to immediately remove its advertising from the city streets. Kensington and Chelsea Council has taken a step further, and initiated legal action against the luxury department store, Harvey Nichols in relation to an outdoor advertisement. The Council argued successfully in the Court of Appeal that Harvey Nichols had breached planning restrictions by attaching a giant advertisement to its scaffolding.
Comments:	These three recent events indicate that local authorities in the United Kingdom are now very closely monitoring outdoor advertising activities. They are clearly prepared to take action if they consider that an advertiser is in breach of the law.
Topic:	Advertisements and homosexuality.
Who:	The Advertising Standards Authority ("ASA") and The Independent Television Commission ("ITC").
When:	January, May and June 2001.
What happened:	There is an increasing amount of sensitivity about the depiction of homosexuality and homosexual relationships in advertising. The Financial Times, for example, recently rejected a pre-booked advertisement for the "Gay Times" magazine on the ground that the advertisement was "inappropriate for the medium", prompting complaints from Gay Times that it was the "least offensive ad ever to be censored". The ASA has also recently received over 50 objections to a poster for a lifestyle website headed "thank God for women", and featuring two women lying on a bed kissing. Upon consideration, the ASA concluded that the advertisement did not breach Rule 5 of the British Codes of Advertising and Sales Promotion, which prohibits advertisements which cause serious or widespread offence. In addition, the ITC has recently ruled that an advertisement for "Sandals" resort holidays was misleading because it did not disclose that the resorts were for heterosexual couples only. The ITC pointed out that most holidays were available to all members of the population. Therefore, the default position was one of universal applicability. Any deviation from the "norm" had to be clearly indicated by unambiguous visuals or by qualifying text or voice-over. This decision is interesting for a number of reasons, not in the least because it contradicts the opinion of the BACC that the advertisement was not misleading or deceptive.
Comments:	The decisions of the ASA and ITC show that they will readily allow advertisers to promote gay relationships. On the basis of these decisions, it might also be concluded that companies should think carefully before they reject advertisements which depict homosexuals. As the ASA has clearly stated, these advertisements do not generally cause offence. A refusal to run those advertisements may also breach the right to free speech of the advertiser under the Human Rights Act 1998.
Topic:	Advertisements for food.
Who:	The Food Standards Agency and The Committee of Advertising Practice ("CAP").
When:	July 2001.
What happened:	The Food Standards Agency has recently indicated that a number of rigorous new measures will be soon adopted to protect consumers from misleading food labels and advertisements. For example, the Agency has warned food manufacturers and advertisers that specific standards will apply to certain descriptive words appearing on food labels and advertisements, such as "fresh", "natural" and "pure". The Committee of Advertising Practice (CAP) has similarly advised food companies that they risk being censured if they fail to comply with CAP guidelines relating to organic produce. Those guidelines state that advertisers can only claim their products are organic if they come from farmers who follow the minimum standards under EU Regulations. They also warn against claiming that organic food tastes better unless there is convincing evidence that this is the case.