Drink firm’s promotion slammed by watchdog

By James Ridler contact

- Last updated on GMT

Juice to U has fallen foul of the Advertising Standards Authority
Juice to U has fallen foul of the Advertising Standards Authority

Related tags: Advertising, Marketing

Healthy drinks firm Juice to U has fallen foul of the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA), after failing to award a prize to a competition winner.

Juice to U ran the competition through its Twitter account in December last year, posting: “Win a three day detox and one month’s healthy eating plan including breakfast, lunch, dinner, snack, sides, alkaline water and juices.”

The complainant – who was tagged in a tweet that said she was the winner – said she had not received her prize several months later and challenged whether the competition had been administered in accordance with the Committees of Advertising Practice (CAP) Code.

Apparent disregard for the Code

The ASA said it was concerned by Juice to U’s lack of response and apparent disregard for breaching the Code under (Edition 12) rule 1.7 – unreasonable delay.

It added: “The CAP Code stated that promoters must award the prizes as described in their marketing communications or reasonable equivalents, normally within 30 days.

Because we understood that the prize had not been delivered to the complainant, and Juice to U had not provided us with evidence that it had been sent, we concluded that the promotion had not been administered in accordance with the CAP Code and was in breach.”

Juice to U did not respond to the ASA’s enquiries, claimed the Watchdog. FoodManufacture.co.uk has also approached Juice to U for a comment.

Breached CAP Code

The ASA ruled that the competition had also breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 8.2 for promotional marketing, as well as rules 8.14 and 8.15.1 for administration.

The watchdog told Juice to U to avoid causing unnecessary disappointment to consumers in the administration of future promotions.

Juice to U was told to award the prize as described – or a reasonable equivalent – to the complainant. The case was referred to the CAP’s compliance team.

Meanwhile, earlier this month, an advert for Bio-tiful Dairy’s kefir drink​ was banned by the ASA for making unsubstantiated health claims. 

Related topics: Drinks, Legal

Related news

Show more

Follow us

Featured Events

View more

Products

View more

Webinars