Surely this is false advertising then?

estebanrey · 18 Feb 2015 at 23:58

So, photos have leaked online of what Beyonce really looked like in her shots for L'Oreal's make-up campaign....

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbi...leak-online-fans-mixed-reactions-Twitter.html

My question is how they can get away with this and not fall foul of false advertising regulations. This is fine for selling hair dye but these were also used for their foundation range. If her pimples/acne need photoshopping out then surely they can't claim the final result is due to their foundation.

*Oh and in before "they should call it L'Ofake"

Bennie-Mac · 19 Feb 2015 at 00:26

estebanrey said:
*Oh and in before "they should call it L'Ofake"

Don't worry, I'm sure no one would have thought of this genius name without the assistance of a teacher or carer.

Steampunk · 19 Feb 2015 at 00:27

They usually get away with some small print weasel words about "not being representative of final product" or "simulated image", etc. There was a ASA ruling last year where Loreal had to pull ads with Julia Roberts and Christy Turlington because of over-airbrushing, but they were selling it as an anti-aging product.

I guess if they are just selling makup and carefully treading the line of what they are claiming it will do, they can get away with it.

All of those ads have dodgy small print. Every wondered why it's always things like "126 of 144 women agreed"? They just keep asking women and stop when they get the percentage they want agreeing with them! "Longer lashes" that have been "enhanced by post production", etc. It's all advertising and marketing nonsense.

scotty365 · 19 Feb 2015 at 00:30

just another grabbing the money - its the way of things

Wizzfizz · 19 Feb 2015 at 00:30

Isn't the ad about the lipstick?

Oh Ed not again. · 19 Feb 2015 at 00:37

It is, but they wouldn't do it if there wasn't a way of getting away with it.

And don't call me Shirley.

ADT · 19 Feb 2015 at 00:43

Anyone with a tiny bit of common sense can easily conclude that these kind of pictures are always enhanced. Specially the hair treatment products.

hyperseven · 19 Feb 2015 at 01:00

I am sure they have a decent legal team to control how far they can push the law.

Jono8 · 19 Feb 2015 at 01:18

ADT said:
Anyone with a tiny bit of common sense can easily conclude that these kind of pictures are always enhanced. Specially the hair treatment products.

stopper · 19 Feb 2015 at 03:31

If you think she looks bad without her photoshop, you should hear her without her autotune.

jkb · 19 Feb 2015 at 06:13

stopper said:
If you think she looks bad without her photoshop, you should hear her without her autotune.

ShaolinDreams · 19 Feb 2015 at 06:35

Isn't lying a common business practice.

Derek W · 19 Feb 2015 at 07:08

Is the op disappointed he didn't the same results at home as he saw on the advert?

Unusual topic for a predominantly male orientated forum.

Edrof · 19 Feb 2015 at 07:09

ShaolinDreams said:
Isn't lying a common business practice.

Yup.

Seft · 19 Feb 2015 at 07:46

File a complaint with the ASA if you're concerned. You can do it online in less than five minutes and a real person will email you back in a couple days to let you know whether they're taking the case forward.

Cosimo · 19 Feb 2015 at 10:16

Derek W said:
Unusual topic for a predominantly male orientated forum.

OP pulling off some of the chains and feeling liberated.

Orionaut · 19 Feb 2015 at 10:38

ISTR that there was an (Ultimately doomed) attempt in the 19th century to make it possible for "Fraud via Make-up" to be declared grounds for marriage annulment!