Cycling company wrong to suggest Olympian's endorsement, rules ad watchdog

An Olympic medal-winning cyclist has had her objection to beingused in a bicycle chain advertisement upheld by advertisingregulator the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA).

Bike chain manufacturer KMC Chain Europe has been censured bythe ASA for claiming in an ad that Emma Johansson endorsed itsproducts when she did not. The ad even included a 'testimonial'from Johansson that she said she had never given.

A specialist cycling magazine carried an ad which picturedJohansson and stated that she 'chooses' the KMC X10SL Goldchain.

"Details makes [sic] the difference between the podium ornothing," it said she said. "KMC is the most innovative in chaintechnology and makes the difference with their X10SL Gold; optimalshifting performance and its extreme light weight. KMC Chains aresimply the best," the ad quoted Johansson as saying.

Swedish cyclist Johansson's management team said that thetestimonial was not genuine and that she had not endorsed thechains.

KMC said in its defence that Johansson was part of two cyclingteams which it sponsored, and that the chain she was using in oneof the ad's pictures was a KMC chain.

The ASA ruled, however, that the company's suggestion thatJohansson herself endorsed its products made the ad misleading.

"KMC had not demonstrated that the testimonial in the ad wasdirectly attributable to Emma Johansson or that she had givenpermission for her image or name to be used," it said. "Because KMChad not demonstrated that Emma Johansson endorsed the product orthat the testimonial was genuine, we concluded that the ad waslikely to mislead."

The ASA ordered the company not to use the ad again, and toldKMC to ensure that it had people's approval before claiming thatthey endorsed its products.

In 2002 Eddie Irvine won a case in which the High Courtconfirmed that celebrities have the right to control theirendorsements.

Irvine had appeared without his consent in an advert for radiostation talkSPORT. In a promotional brochure sent to fewer than1,000 people he appeared in a doctored photo which showed himapparently holding a radio with talkSPORT's logo on it.

The High Court awarded him £2,000 in the case but on appeal hadthat increased to £25,000 by arguing that that was his minimum feefor endorsements.

A false endorsement could also be prosecuted as a "misleadingaction" under the Consumer Protection from Unfair TradingRegulations of 2008. An advert could amount to a misleading actionif "its overall presentation in any way deceives or is likely todeceive the average consumer" in relation to "any statement orsymbol relating to direct or indirect sponsorship or approval ofthe trader or the product".