The protection of minors as recipients of advertising communications
With the decision no. 48/2023 of 30 January 2024, the Jury of the Italian Institute of Advertising Self-Regulation ruled on the lawfulness of a recent ad by Vodafone Italia S.p.A. ("Vodafone") on Mediaset networks, relating to the purchase of smartphones in instalments.
Specifically, the commercial promoted Vodafone's "Smartphone Easy" offer under which it was possible to purchase a smartphone by splitting the payment over 48 monthly instalments. The ad was set inside the room of a little girl who was busy choosing, on a computer, the Christmas gift for her mother, a smartphone; when her younger brother asked her how she could pay for the phone, the little girl replied that "there is a place where they give you the phone you want, and you pay for it a little piece at a time".
The commercial continued in a Vodafone store: during the father's purchase of the smartphone, the son handed the store clerk a piece of chocolate and turning to testimonial Alessandro Cattelan stated: “I pay for the phone with it, one piece at a time”.
With regards to this commercial, the Institute's Control Committee, which oversees the protection of citizen-consumers, initially warned Vodafone and Publitalia '80 S.p.A. - the exclusive advertising concessionaire for Mediaset networks - to desist from broadcasting the telecommunication, as it was manifestly contrary to Articles 11 (Children and Adolescents) and 17 (Credit Sales) of the Code of Self-Regulation of Commercial Communication.
The Committee, in fact, pointed out the non-educational nature of the commercial, as it was likely to propose an instalment purchase model incompatible with the subjects represented, given their lack of experience due to their young age, as provided for in Article 11 of the Code, as well as the fact that proposing to children the feasibility of purchasing any goods – especially expensive items such as a smartphone - just because it can be purchased in instalments, without any consideration of the family budget and the necessary evaluation of the possible purchase by adults.
In addition, the Committee found that the ad also violated Article 17 of the Code, as the advertisement appeared to lack the data required by said provision, since the mere reference made by the ad to information documents on credit sales available at points of sale could not be considered sufficient.
Following the defences raised by Vodafone - mainly concerning the alleged aptitude of the commercial towards the financial literacy of minors - and the summoning of the parties before the Jury, the latter ruled excluding that the commercial could consist of a communication aimed at children and adolescents, and as such likely to fall under Article 11 of the Code, with no consideration of the complaints regarding Article 17 of the Code.
The Jury found that although minors were involved in the commercial, adults remained the target audience of the ad. Adults were regarded, as the potential customers to whom it communicated the possibility of buying a smartphone in instalments.
In fact, Article 11 protects the minor especially as the recipient of the commercial message: considering the clear division of the ad into two parts, the mere presence of children and adolescents in the first part was not capable of changing the target audience, but rather found justification in the need to construct a specific narrative aimed at increasing the suggestive value of the commercial proposal, in accordance with a practice in the advertising industry that is becoming increasingly consolidated.
To confirm this, the second scene of the ad involved the decision concerning the actual and concrete purchase of the smartphone, which was entirely referable to the father, even though it originated in the dialogue with the children, which is why, when the advertisement was examined, the Jury did not find it to be contrary to the provisions of the Code.