TheManWithNoName
Registered Shopper
- Joined
- Feb 16, 2023
- Messages
- 2,147
Finally, the ASA are showing their teeth at last (probably because they're sick of me by now!).
PART ONE:
You may recall that I reported Gemporia to the ASA for using the misleading name 'Ruby Quartz'. The ASA agreed that this name is misleading because the stone is not Ruby nor does it have any Ruby content. Gemporia have now been notified that they cannot use this name in the future. All future sales of this stone will have to specify that it is red coloured Quartz.
This is a big deal for Gemporia because now that the ASA have ruled that this is misleading, it sets a precedent for other misleading stone names. This could lead to further repercussions in a few weeks time because I've since reported Gemporia for selling "Maw-Sit-Sit Jadeite" (Maw-Sit-Sit is NOT Jadeite) and "Mountain Jade Serpentine" (Serpentine is also NOT Jade!). These are still being investigated.
PART TWO (THE IMPORTANT ONE!):
I reported Gemporia to the ASA last year after Adina constantly price compared a dyed blue Opal to untreated Opal. She kept referring to both as RARE. Not once did she mention that her stone was dyed.
The ASA ruled, at that time, that the presentation was misleading - and that treatments must be displayed more clearly on screen going forward.
The ASA said "to ensure that future advertising will clearly state the main characteristics of the product, and that presenters will refrain from contradicting these main characteristics via puffery which is likely to mislead a viewer and exaggerate the capability or performance of a product. We have also provided instruction on making the infographics more transparent for viewers."
Since then, despite the ASA warning Gemporia to display treatments more clearly on screen, Gemporia sold some COATED Blue Amber on screen in February. As usual, price comparisons were made to VERY rare natural blue Amber from the Dominican Republic and Burma. Adina did not refer to her stone as being coated at all. More importantly, NO TREATMENT DETAILS WERE SHOWN ON SCREEN - despite their previous warning.
So I reported that to the ASA.
As a result of this, the ASA have today informed me of the following:
"If the advertisers (Gemporia) don’t co-operate with us on this matter in the future and adhere to our instruction, subject to assessment, we will now be in a position to consider more formal action and investigation that involves the ASA Council."
So, in a nutshell, if Gemporia fail to show the treatment on-screen, of ANY treated gemstone, in the future, and it is reported to the ASA, the ASA can finally take formal action.
PART ONE:
You may recall that I reported Gemporia to the ASA for using the misleading name 'Ruby Quartz'. The ASA agreed that this name is misleading because the stone is not Ruby nor does it have any Ruby content. Gemporia have now been notified that they cannot use this name in the future. All future sales of this stone will have to specify that it is red coloured Quartz.
This is a big deal for Gemporia because now that the ASA have ruled that this is misleading, it sets a precedent for other misleading stone names. This could lead to further repercussions in a few weeks time because I've since reported Gemporia for selling "Maw-Sit-Sit Jadeite" (Maw-Sit-Sit is NOT Jadeite) and "Mountain Jade Serpentine" (Serpentine is also NOT Jade!). These are still being investigated.
PART TWO (THE IMPORTANT ONE!):
I reported Gemporia to the ASA last year after Adina constantly price compared a dyed blue Opal to untreated Opal. She kept referring to both as RARE. Not once did she mention that her stone was dyed.
The ASA ruled, at that time, that the presentation was misleading - and that treatments must be displayed more clearly on screen going forward.
The ASA said "to ensure that future advertising will clearly state the main characteristics of the product, and that presenters will refrain from contradicting these main characteristics via puffery which is likely to mislead a viewer and exaggerate the capability or performance of a product. We have also provided instruction on making the infographics more transparent for viewers."
Since then, despite the ASA warning Gemporia to display treatments more clearly on screen, Gemporia sold some COATED Blue Amber on screen in February. As usual, price comparisons were made to VERY rare natural blue Amber from the Dominican Republic and Burma. Adina did not refer to her stone as being coated at all. More importantly, NO TREATMENT DETAILS WERE SHOWN ON SCREEN - despite their previous warning.
So I reported that to the ASA.
As a result of this, the ASA have today informed me of the following:
"If the advertisers (Gemporia) don’t co-operate with us on this matter in the future and adhere to our instruction, subject to assessment, we will now be in a position to consider more formal action and investigation that involves the ASA Council."
So, in a nutshell, if Gemporia fail to show the treatment on-screen, of ANY treated gemstone, in the future, and it is reported to the ASA, the ASA can finally take formal action.
Last edited:
