This week, the legal support service Legal Utopia avoided an upheld ASA ruling against their TV ad which appeared in October 2021.

The ad featured a voice-over that stated, “I’ve discovered Legal Utopia; the app to help you save time and potentially save money… It’s accessible, affordable law for all and for all sorts.” The voice-over continued by giving examples of when the app could be used, including to deal with “…claims against shoddy shysters”. This was accompanied by a visual of a woman speaking angrily on the phone as she examined leaky pipes under a sink. 

The ad can be viewed here.

Investigation 

One member of the public was unimpressed with use of the word “shyster” in this ad. The complainant believed this to be a derogatory term used to describe Jewish people, and challenged the TV ad on the grounds that it was likely to cause serious or widespread offence.

Legal Utopia stated that their understanding of the word was based on the Oxford English Dictionary definition of “shyster”, which is “a dishonest or unscrupulous person”. They understood that the origin of the word was not particularly clear and that most interpretations did not have an anti-Semitic basis.

They argued that the interpretation that the word came from the Shakespeare play “The Merchant of Venice” from the 16th century was exceedingly remote and unsupported, and they did not believe that it could cause serious or widespread offence.

Legal Utopia argued that Clearcast, the body responsible for clearing all TV ads in the UK, did not object or express any concern around the use of the word “shyster”. In response to the ASA, Clearcast said they believed the origin of the word “shyster” came from the German language and actually meant “an unscrupulous or disreputable person”. Whilst they noted that the Shakespearean play may arouse anti-Semitic connotations around the protagonist, Shylock, who was a Jewish money lender, they did not believe there was clear evidence to support this. Clearcast's view was that the average viewer was likely to agree with the advertiser's intended meaning.

ASA's decision

The ASA did not uphold this ruling. During the course of their investigations, the ASA consulted with the Board of Deputies of British Jews, who had no concerns around the term used in the ad.

The ASA stated that in the context used in the ad, most viewers would understand the term “shyster” as referring to an unscrupulous plumber who had carried out substandard work and failed to correct it. So, whilst some viewers may have found the phrase distasteful, in the context of the ad, the word was unlikely to cause serious or widespread offence.

The ad therefore did not breach BCAP rule 4.2 (Harm and offence).

You can read the full ASA ruling here - Legal Utopia Ltd - ASA | CAP.