Crypto ads on Jessica and Eve Gale’s Instagram accounts draw ASA criticism
Love Island stars and influencers Jessica Gale and Eve Gale have drawn the attention of the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) due to crypto ads published on their Instagram accounts.
Today, the watchdog announced its ruling regarding the problematic crypto ads. Three issues were investigated, all of which were upheld.
The ads in question are:
- a. An Instagram ad, presented as an Instastory, featured on Eve Gale’s account and seen in June 2022. The story featured a video of Eve Gale who said, “Hey guys. So I just wanted to introduce you to a girl called Elizabeth who I recently met on my travels and she works in crypto. So saving and investing, and she literally breaks it down and makes it so much easier to understand. Teaches you guys how to make money from your phone in such an easy way. So I would definitely recommend. If you guys are interested all you have to do is send her a DM and tell her I sent you.”
- b. An Instagram ad, presented as an Instastory, featured on Jessica Gale’s account and seen in June 2022. The story featured a video of Jessica Gale who said, “Hey guys I hope you are all good. Just quickly me and Eve have just been introduced to someone in Mykonos. She was so lovely. Her name is Elizabeth. She has introduced us to the world of crypto. So I knew nothing about this before but I was honestly blown away at how quickly her business has grown. It is basically a super quick, easy way of making extra money from your phone. And I am going to leave her tag there so if you interested you can drop her a DM, find out more about it. So safe and so easy. And yes say you guys came from me.”
The complainant challenged whether ads (a) and (b) were irresponsible because they trivialised investment in cryptocurrency.
The ASA challenged whether ads (a) and (b) were misleading because they failed to illustrate the risk of the investment; and irresponsible because they took advantage of consumers’ inexperience or credulity.
The ASA acknowledged Jessica and Eve Gales’ explanation that they believed Elizabeth’s service provided information about cryptocurrency, but was not an investment service. However, the ASA noted an Instastory on Elizabeth’s Instagram page that said, “TRADES AVAILABLE”, “SAME DAY RESULTS” and listed four amounts in dollars and what the return would be. A second Instastory said, “How are payments made to you for trades?” and “IF YOU ARE FROM THE USA, CASHAPP IS THE FASTEST AND EASIEST PAYMENT METHOD. IF YOU ARE ANYWHERE ELSE IN THE WORLD DOWNLOAD AND SIGN UP FOR THE CRYPTO.COM APP”. In addition, Elizabeth’s Instagram biography stated “Crypto”.
The ASA therefore considered on balance that the advertiser’s service included taking money for trading in cryptoassets. However, the ASA noted that regardless of whether Elizabeth took money to make trades or just provided advice, the ads promoted investment in cryptoassets.
The Authority understood cryptoasset investment was sophisticated and complex, subject to frequent change in value and one that could potentially lead to large losses. The ASA noted that Jessica and Eve Gales’ Instagram accounts were general lifestyle accounts and not financial in nature. The watchdog therefore considered the ads were addressed to a general audience who were unlikely to have any specialist knowledge of investing in cryptoassets.
The ASA noted further that ad (a) stated, “Teaches you guys how to make money from your phone in such an easy way” and ad (b) stated, “a super quick, easy way of making extra money from your phone”. In addition, Jessica Gale in ad (b) explained that she knew nothing about cryptoassets before meeting Elizabeth.
In the absence of any other information to the contrary, the ASA considered that consumers would interpret the overall impression from the ads to mean that investment in cryptoassets was simple and risk free, even to those consumers who had only limited knowledge of cryptoassets.
Because the ASA considered that the ad trivialised investing in cryptoassets by implying that investment was simple and straight forward for all, especially in the context of the intended audience who were likely to have limited knowledge of cryptoassets, the ASA concluded the ads were irresponsible and breached the Code.
On that point, the ad breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 1.3 (Social responsibility)
The CAP Code required that marketing communications for investments made clear that the value of investments were variable and, unless guaranteed, could go down as well as up, and also that significant limitations and qualifications were stated and presented clearly. The ASA understood that cryptoassets were a volatile investment, subject to frequent change and one that could potentially lead to large losses.
The ASA considered the ads were addressed to a general audience who were unlikely to have any specialist knowledge of investing in cryptoassets. The watchdog understood such an audience would expect cryptoasset investments to be regulated, with legal protection in place for investment activities.
Because the ads did not include any risk warning making consumers aware that cryptoassets could go down as well as up, or that the cryptoassets were unregulated in the UK we concluded that the ads were misleading.
On that point the ad breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1 3.3 (Misleading advertising), 3.9 (Qualification) and 14.4 (Financial products).
The ASA considered that the general public, at whom the ads were targeted, were unlikely to be aware that Capital Gains Tax (CGT) had to be paid on profits from investing in cryptoassets once CGT allowances were exceeded. However, the ads did not contain any information that CGT could be payable on profits from investing in cryptoassets, and the ASA considered the potential tax implications was not made sufficiently clear to consumers considering investing in cryptoassets.
For that reason the ASA considered that the ads took advantage of consumers’ inexperience or credulity by not making clear that CGT could be payable on profits from investing. The watchdog therefore concluded the ads were irresponsible and breached the Code.
On that point, the ad breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 1.3 (Social responsibility), and 14.1 (Financial products).
The ads must not appear again in the form complained about, the Authority ruled. It told elizabethh.od, Jessica Gale and Eve Gale to ensure that they did not trivialise the investment in cryptoassets by implying that it was straightforward or accessible to everyone and to not take advantage of consumer’s inexperience or credulity by not making clear CGT could be due on cryptoasset profits.
The ASA also told them to ensure that their future ads made sufficiently clear that the value of investments in cryptoassets were variable and could go down as well as up and that cryptoasset was unregulated.