APPENDIX III

Applying the Cross Border Complaints Procedure
for Internet advertisements

Applying the recommended route outlined above, examples of how the cross border procedure for Internet advertising would work in practice are:

1. Advertiser located in UK only, using UK ISP with computer files stored on computers in the UK. Complaint made by Italian consumer to IAP.

Complaint referred to and dealt with by ASA, outcome notified to IAP.

2. Advertisement identified as UK base for mail order transactions but head office is in Germany, service provider and home page address is in Bonn.

Complaint made by Belgian consumer to JEP.

Complaints referred to ZBUW for investigation. If company proves unco-operative, ZBUW alerts ASA to use sanctions available on the mail order fulfilment house. If the ISP was based in the UK the ASA could ask the Internet Service Providers Association for assistance in enforcing the ruling.

3. A pyramid selling scheme (Vanilla Services BV) operating out of the Netherlands but from a company based in Gibraltar. The advertisement is in Spanish. Service provider country is currently unknown.

Complaint from a Spanish consumer to the SRC (The Netherlands).

Gibraltar is outside the ASA's jurisdiction so UK codes could not be applied, the SRC may not be able to apply their codes to advertisements in another language so the complaint would be referred to the AAP in Spain for investigation. If the company were unco-operative the AAP would first seek enforcement measures through the SRC. The service provider could also be traced, or a Euro Ad Alert issued, to see what further sanctions could be applied.

4. A national press and poster campaign promoting a telecommunications company in the Netherlands is supported by advertising material on the company's web site. The advertising company is British and the web site's country of origin is the UK. A Dutch competitor objects to misleading price comparisons in the campaign.

Using existing procedures the press and poster campaign would be investigated on a local basis through the SRC without using the cross border system. But if the same claims are being challenged in the Internet advertisement it would be more appropriate to extend the print media investigation to look also at the Internet rather than refer the same complaint to the ASA under the country of origin principle. The ASA could be informed about the complaint and the outcome by the SRC and invited to co-operate in the event of non-compliance.