Company: The Gift Service Ltd
Final Decision: 1 September 2006
Considered under the 3rd Edition of the Code.
“The pack contains champagne and a teddy bear, as is the case with the Bubbly & Bear gift pack. The bear is visible, and is an integral part of the gift. The Independent Complaints Panel ruling against the Bubbly & Bear gift pack concluded that ˜because of the inclusion of the teddy bear, the gift pack had particular appeal to under 18s in breach of Code paragraph 3.2(g)”. I submit that the gift pack which includes [a] teddy bear must therefore be in breach of Code paragraph 3.2(g).”
Blue Sky Beverage Company Ltd
Under Code paragraph 3.2(g)
A drink, its packaging and any promotional material or activity should not in any direct or indirect way have a particular appeal to under 18s.
The Panel first concluded that the gift box fell within the remit of the Code as defined in Code paragraph 2.1.
The Panel then considered whether the gift box was likely to have a particular appeal to under 18s. In determining this, the Panel looked at the matter broadly as permitted by Code paragraph 2.9. The Panel noted that the product could be purchased only through the producers website using a credit or debit card.
It considered that the website, in terms of its overall design and by virtue of the other items for sale (various gift sets), was clearly targeted at adults. The Panel considered that under 18s were therefore less likely to access the product than if it had been sold in a shop.
The Panel also noted that at £40.50 the gift set was relatively expensive. It further considered that the gift set, which included a 37.5cl bottle of champagne and a teddy bear holding a heart, was specifically marketed as a romantic gift for adults.
In view of the context in which the product was marketed (i.e. an adult-oriented website), the price of the gift set, the overall content of the gift set and the way it was presented within the website, the Panel concluded that the gift set did not have a particular appeal to under 18s and therefore did not breach Code paragraph 3.2(g).