Community Investment Club
Unit 5
Central Market
Scarrotts Lane
Newport
Isle of Wight
PO30 1JD
|
Complaint:
Objection to a regional press advertisement and a leaflet for an investment scheme. The advertisement was headlined "LOOK INVEST ONLY £100 AND RECEIVE £88,300"; the text stated "I joined a scheme - GOT BADLY BURNED and decided to find a way to do something similar but with * SMALLER OUTLAY * GREATER REWARD * MORE CONTROL * LESS RISK … I AM A WOMAN - TRUST ME, IT CAN WORK - FOREVER!".
The leaflet showed the expected earnings on investments between £100 and £6,000. It stated "INVEST JUST £100 - go through 5 different levels - keep most of what you receive at each level, re-investing along the way and receive a total of £88,300 … START AGAIN WITH £100 - THERE IS NO LIMIT TO HOW MANY TIMES YOU GO AROUND … THERE IS A FAR BETTER CHANCE OF MAKING MONEY FROM THIS - THAN DREAMING OF WINNING ON THE LOTTERY ... THIS SYSTEM IS UNLIKE ANY OTHER - We are the only one to have a 'CENTRAL CO-ORDINATOR' … ". The complainant challenged: 1. the earnings claims and the implication, in the press advertisement and the leaflet, that those who invested in the scheme would definitely receive a return; 2. the claim "there is a far better chance of making money from this - than dreaming of winning on the lottery" in the leaflet; 3. the claim "this system is unlike any other" in the leaflet, because she believed its essential features were similar to those of other money circulation schemes; and 4. the omission of the advertisers' full name in the press advertisement. Codes Section: 3.1, 6.1, 7.1, 23.3, 54.5, 55.5 (Ed 10)
Adjudication:
1. Complaint upheld The advertisers said they had lost money in other schemes and had tried to create a scheme that was fairer and had more chance of generating a reasonable amount of profit for lots of people. They acknowledged that the claim "invest only £100 and receive £88,300" could imply that participants would receive the latter amount. The advertisers said they had already changed the claim to "... and possibly receive £88,300". The Authority considered that, in the absence of substantiation to support the claim, the advertisers had not proved that participants would receive £88,300. Until they held evidence to show the amount could reasonably be attained by participants, the Authority asked the advertisers to remove the claims about financial return. 2. Complaint upheld The advertisers said they had removed the claim. The Authority considered that the claim was vague and mentioned merely dreaming of winning the lottery. Because, however, the advertisers had not shown that participants would receive any money whatsoever from the scheme, it welcomed their decision to remove the claim. 3. Complaint upheld The advertisers said their scheme was unlike others because participants re-invested at different levels; they believed that other schemes on the Isle of Wight were run by people who took the money without re-investing. The Authority considered that the scheme seemed to be essentially the same or very similar to other multi-level marketing schemes and asked the advertisers to change the claim. 4. Complaint upheld The advertisers offered to include their full name in future. The Authority noted the advertisers had stated the name of one of the founder members and had given a mobile phone number in the advertisements. It considered that, despite the fact that they were inviting readers to find out more information and not selling off the page or asking for money, the advertisers should include their full name and address in the advertisements. The Authority welcomed the advertisers' agreement to include their full contact details in future advertisements. |
Home 
Articles 
