Boots breached advertising rules with Google ads for four baby formula products, the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) ruled today (August 23).
On April 11 this year, four paid Google ads for the multiple - all of which advertised baby formula - were noted by a complainant, according to the ASA’s ruling.
Marketing communications for infant formula are prohibited if they are aimed at the general public, according to the UK code of non-broadcast advertising and direct and promotional marketing (CAP Code), it said.
Read more: Online pharmacy's erectile dysfunction campaign 'banned' on social media
The ruling noted that Boots was “fully aware” of its legal responsibilities in terms of the CAP Code regarding baby formula and had “apologised for the error”.
The multiple said it had taken “immediate steps” and “manually” removed the offending ads from Google and other search engines, the ASA said.
“Human error”
Boots explained to the ASA that the ads had been automatically produced from products listed on its website, the watchdog added.
While products that cannot be advertised or are subject to restrictions were placed in an “exclusions file”, the most recent version of this file had not been given to its paid search advertising team, which led to the ads appearing on Google, it said.
Boots told the ASA that the ads only appeared on Google and not on its social or digital display advertising, which, it said, “suggested” that “human error” was to blame.
“Prompt action”
The ASA said in its ruling that it “welcomed Boots’ prompt action” and its “assurance” that it had taken steps to prevent such breaches from happening again.
A spokesperson for Boots told C+D that it had “immediately” removed the baby formula products from its paid media marketing.
They said that the multiple’s list of exclusions and digital processes have subsequently been “reviewed” to prevent future breaches of the CAP Code.
Read more: MHRA and ASA pulling hair out over minoxidil TV ad guarantee
In June, C+D reported that Boots had been affected by a “global data vulnerability” that caused the personal details of some of its staff to be compromised, after hackers targeted a third-party software used by one of the multiple’s payroll providers.
Meanwhile in October 2015, the ASA upheld another complaint against the multiple, finding that an advert claiming that Boots Protect Plus Blue lenses protect against “harmful” blue light could not be substantiated.
And in November 2015, the ASA ruled that an advert for the defensive properties of Boots Cold and Flu Defence Nasal Spray was also not supported by sufficiently robust evidence.
