Complaint: 17/209

L’Oreal AUS and NZ, Television

Details

Complainants
advertisers
L'Oreal AUS and NZL
Year
2017
Media
Television
Product
Health and Beauty
Clauses
Decision
No Grounds to Proceed
ASA Links
Website Listing
Decision Document

Document

2017_20900.png

COMPLAINT NUMBER 17/209

COMPLAINANT V Puklowski

ADVERTISER L'Oreal AUS and NZL ADVERTISEMENT L'Oreal AUS and NZ, Television DATE OF MEETING 3 July 2017

OUTCOME No Grounds to Proceed


Advertisement: The L'Oreal Paris Colorista television advertisement shows various fast paced images of women with coloured hair including two women kissing. The voiceover said: ..."Go boldly, whoever you are ...Give up the rules, give in to colour. Do it your way - We're worth it!"

The Chair ruled there were no grounds for the complaint to proceed.

Complainant, V Puklowski, said: A hair product advertisement, fun and funky, appealing to young girls, has two women kissing, which has nothing to do with the product and is unnecessarily shocking.

The relevant provisions were Code of Ethics - Basic Principle 4, Rule 4, Rule 5.

The Chair noted the Complainant's concern about the image of two women kissing while promoting an unrelated product was shocking to them.

The Chair referred to a precedent decision, 15/017, which considered a complaint about a similar issue and was ruled no grounds to proceed. That decision said in part:

"... When considering the content, the Chairman said the depiction of homosexuality was not

grounds for complaint in itself."

The Chair confirmed that this decision applied to the complaint before her and said the advertisement did not reach the threshold to breach the Code of Ethics. While the Chair acknowledged the offence the advertisement had caused the Complainant, she said the depiction of affection between people of the same gender was not likely to cause either serious or widespread offence in the light of generally prevailing community standards and the advertisement had been prepared with a due sense of social responsibility to consumers.

Accordingly, the Chair ruled that there were no grounds for the complaint to proceed.

Chai r' s Ruling: Complaint No Grounds to Proceed