• Welcome
    Sponsors
  • Director
    Members
    Advisory Board
    International Advisory Council
    Research Affiliates
    IPilogue Editors
    Alumni
  • IPilogue
    Events
    Publications
  • JD
    Graduate Program
    Clinical
    Prizes & Awards
  • The IPIGRAM Archive
    Events Archive
    IP in the News
    IP Poll of the Week
    IP Pick of the Week
    Gowlings IPilogue Prize
  • Legislation
    Journals
    Government
  • Contact Us
    Subscribe

ASA Rules On Ad For Joke Phone Hacking App: Guess The Joke Is On You, Jamster

August 12, 2011 by Satomi Aki (IPilogue Editor)

Satomi Aki is a JD candidate at Osgoode Hall Law School.

The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA), the independent advertising watchdog of the UK, upheld On July 13, 2011, complaints against Jamster, a SMS mobile phone content provider, over their ad for a joke phone hacking app that was originally televised in April 2011.

The complainants alleged that the ad was misleading, contrary to rules 3.1 and 3.10 of the UK Code of Broadcast Advertising (BCAP Code), as it implied that the app would allow the buyer to read another person’s private text messages. The ad was also challenged on the basis of rule 4.9 as being irresponsible for encouraging and condoning criminal behaviour (i.e. phone hacking).  The complete voice-over of the ad can be read here.

Jesta Digital GmbH, owner the Jamster brand, maintained that the ad never intended to imply that the app was a real SMS reader; they thought that the words “Fun App” appearing on the screen was sufficient to convey to the audience that the app was a joke product allowing consumers to pretend that they had acquired a real SMS reader. Clearcast Advertising Services, the agency that executed the joke ad, argued that the voice-over that included phrases such as “Fool your friends” and “This fun app” made clear that the app could not be used for unscrupulous purposes.

The ASA agreed with the advertisers that the ad was not irresponsible, as the ad did not encourage viewers to use the app for pernicious purposes. However, the ASA rejected the claim that the ad made clear that the app was a joke product as the ad was ambiguous as to the exact nature of the app. For example, the voice-over of the ad stated, “Fool your friends and pretend to read other people’s text messages”, but continued to say, “This fun app can hack into your friend’s mobile and give you all their incoming and very private SMS messages”. As such the ASA found that the ad breached rules 3.1 and 3.10 of the BCAP Code and held that the ad should not appear again in its current form.

The ASA decision is not surprising as the organization has historically fiercely defended the notion that advertising should be ‘legal, decent, honest, and truthful’. In addition, the decision was made in the midst of the public outcry against the News of the World and News Corporation for it phone hacking activities and just days after Rupert Murdoch announced that the News of the World would be shut down (For IPilogue’s coverage on Murdochgate see here and here).

In an unrelated interesting coincidence, News Corporation used to own the majority stake in Jamster until Jesta Digital acquired the brand in December 2010.

Posted in Gaming, Privacy, Regulatory Policy, Technology, UK, UK

Leave a Reply

All replies and responses are moderated and will not appear on the site immediately. Please see our response policy.

« A “Charter Rights First” Approach To The Intersection Of Freedom Of Expression And Copyright | WIPO Looks To Find Balance Between Performer And Producer Rights »

Career Opportunities
Osgoode IP Club
Writing Competitions
IP Research Guide

Follow @IPilogue

RSS Follow Comments via RSS
  • Denise Brunsdon on The Living Daylights (…Scents, Tastes, and Sounds): Bill C-56 Forebodes Drastic Trade-mark Reform
  • Denise Brunsdon on Must Every Canadian Patent Application Include the Inventor’s Best Mode of Working the Invention?
  • Matt on Mario Bouchard: Copyright Quintet opus 1. no.1, by McLachlin et al
  • Danny Titolo on The ‘Myriad’ with the Golden ‘Gene’: Australia Upholds Breast Cancer Gene Patents
  • Tracy Ayodele on Exceptions which Circumvent Logic
  • Nancy Situ on Military Tactics and Rock Star Patent Lawyers; the Patent System under Stress
  • Laura on The Rise and Fall [and Rise Again?] of BlackBerry
  • Howard Knopf on How Music Can Help You, And You Can Help Music – An Interview With Graham Henderson
  • Paul Atkinson on Bill C-56 Remedies: Rights Holders Can All Feel a Little Safer
  • Bart Cormier on The Living Daylights (…Scents, Tastes, and Sounds): Bill C-56 Forebodes Drastic Trade-mark Reform
RSS Follow Posts via RSS
  • Law, Culture, Critique
  • EU Moving Toward New Trade-Mark Regime
  • A Cautionary Kudos: Canada Moves Up on USTR IP Watch List
  • New Step for the Modernization of Copyright Law in the US – Progress or Regress?
  • Reminder: Canada’s IP Writing Challenge 2013
  • Property in Brands
  • Strike Three, Viacom
  • New Book – The Copyright Pentalogy: How the Supreme Court of Canada Shook the Foundations of Canadian Copyright Law
  • The Curious Case of Fake Beijing Olympics Merchandise
  • About the Boundaries of Fairness in Fair Use
  • May 2013
  • April 2013
  • March 2013
  • February 2013
  • January 2013
  • December 2012
  • 2013
  • 2012
  • 2011
  • 2010
  • 2009
  • 2008
  • 2007
  • Advisory Board (9)
  • Announcements (31)
  • Blogs (24)
  • Book Review (5)
  • Broadcasting Regulatory Policy (8)
  • Cloud Services (11)
  • Commercialization (90)
  • Competition (19)
  • Competition Law (14)
  • Contracts (69)
  • copyright reform (159)
  • defamation (19)
  • Design (16)
  • Development (6)
  • European Union (56)
  • events (89)
  • Fashion Industry (23)
  • Feature Post (207)
  • Freedom of Speech (22)
  • Freedom of the Press (17)
  • Gaming (9)
  • General (151)
  • Human Rights (10)
  • Image (6)
  • Innovation (156)
  • Internet (274)
  • IP (1245)
    • Copyright (619)
      • CD Levy (10)
      • Digital Downloads (78)
      • Digital Libraries (7)
      • Digital Locks (34)
      • Fair Dealing (80)
        • Parody (2)
        • Satire (1)
      • Infringement (158)
      • Internet Sharing (96)
      • Literary Works (65)
      • Moral Rights (16)
      • Movies (53)
      • Music Industry (105)
      • Originality (34)
      • Ownership (107)
        • Licensees (39)
      • Secondary (ISP) Liability (18)
      • Subsidiary Rights (5)
    • IP Reform (38)
    • Patents (382)
      • Access to Medicines (21)
      • Cross Border Issues (50)
      • Electronic Processes (20)
      • Infringement (72)
      • Patent Practice (27)
      • Patent Trolls (21)
      • Patentability (109)
      • Pharmaceutical Drugs (76)
    • Trademarks (245)
      • Domain Names (44)
      • Famous Marks (20)
      • Official Marks (11)
      • Parallel Importation (4)
      • Personality Rights (12)
  • IP Course Topic (13)
  • IP Intensive (26)
  • IP Litigation Practice (17)
  • Jurisdiction (179)
    • Canada (82)
    • Indonesia (1)
    • Japan (2)
    • UK (41)
    • US (75)
  • Law & Music Course Topic (21)
  • Links (3)
  • MediaLaws (17)
  • Music Industry (86)
  • Open-Source (18)
  • Osgoode Alumnus (14)
  • Patents Course Topic (28)
  • Privacy (188)
    • Electronic Databases (42)
    • Human Rights Issues (31)
    • Identity Theft (14)
  • Regulatory Policy (65)
  • Reputation Management (4)
  • Smartphones (14)
  • Social Justice (4)
    • United Nations Development Programme (2)
  • Social Media (30)
  • Supreme Court of Canada (35)
  • Tech Transfer (31)
  • Technology (245)
  • Telecommunications (89)
  • Trade Secrets (9)
  • UK (19)
  • Uncategorized (102)
  • US-Canada Relations (5)
  • WIPO (18)
  • Log in

Home   |   Contact Us   |   Feedback  |   Privacy   

© 2008 Osgoode Hall Law School York University
4700 Keele Street Toronto, Canada M3J 1P3
T:416.736.5030   F:416.736.5736