Jose Aquino against Stuff (sponsored content)
Case Number: 3735
Council Meeting: 28 April 2025
Decision: Upheld
Publication: Stuff
Principle:
Accuracy, Fairness and Balance
Comment and Fact
Conflicts of Interest
Corrections
Ruling Categories:
Comment and Fact
Conflict of Interest
Errors
Overview
1. On 22 March 2025, Stuff published an article A registered naturopath on their go-to herb for health. Jose Aquino complained the article beached Principles (1) Accuracy, Fairness and Balance, and (4) Comment and Fact. The complaint is upheld.
The Article
2. The article presented information from the perspective of a Lifestream naturopath, promoting the virtues of an Ayurveda herb, Ashwagandha. The article said the herb was a go-to solution for many because of its “ability to gently nurture the nervous system” and “offer support for calming the mind.”
3. The article listed nine ways the herb could help readers including “support for stress hormone balance”, “support for a restful night’s sleep” and “supports cardiovascular health”. The article said the herb had been “extensively studies” and “is widely recognised for supporting the body’s natural response to stress without exhausting its resources.” However, no evidence was presented to support these statements.
4. Under the headline, a note advised “This article first appeared in The House of Wellness magazine”. At the end of the article an inset box advised The House of Wellness was produced in association with Chemist Warehouse.
The Complaint
5. Mr Aquino complained the article was “basically an advertisement for an unproven form of alternative medicine”. He said there was a danger people could take the information as medical advice, despite no evidence being given for its efficacy. He said:
… the article promotes misleading, ineffective and potentially dangerous remedy as a treatment for various ailments. No scientific evidence is offered for its claimed benefits. The herb it referred to is part of a 'treatment' known as 'Ayurveda'. If Stuff had carried out cursory research they would realise this is unproven and ineffective.
The Response
6. Stuff initially advised the content was part of a commercial partnership with Chemist Warehouse and had been approved by the Therapeutic Advertising Pre-Vetting Service (TAPS). After receiving Mr Aquino’s complaint, Stuff added the TAPS approval number at the end of the article.
7. In response to the formal complaint, Stuff said the article should have been labelled as having sponsored content. On 1 April, it added words at the top of the article to show it was content sponsored by Lifestream. Stuff also added an important qualifier at the end of the article:
*This article is for informational purposes only and should not replace professional medical advice. Please consult a healthcare professional for personalised guidance and treatment options.
8. It was also pointed out that the article was shown as “sponsored” on its home page, but it was accepted that this word was inadvertently left off the article itself.
9. In its responses, Stuff strongly argued the complaint should be directed to the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA), given the content was an advertisement. Stuff provided information about the TAPS’ process, the ASA’s complaint process, and how the ASA determines whether content is an advertisement.
10. Stuff said the correct label was added to the article on 25 March:
While an error was made in omitting a commercial content label to the article page of this sponsored content advertorial, all other processes were followed to ensure it was clearly labelled on the homepage, that it met the ASA’s guidelines … and complied with regulations. … Stuff has also implemented additional checks on commercial content to ensure all badging is complete prior to publication.
The Discussion
Jurisdiction
11. The Council confirms it has jurisdiction to consider the complaint. The article was not labelled as an advertisement nor as sponsored content, although the Council accepts the content was written as, and intended to be published as, sponsored content. This was achieved on Stuff’s home page, but as conceded, was inadvertently left off the article itself. In relation to that article, in the mind of the ordinary reader, the content would have appeared to be editorial, and the Council will consider the complaint on that basis.
The Council has consistently taken the view that it has jurisdiction to consider complaints about articles which were sponsored by an advertiser but not labelled as sponsored content. In this regard we refer to the decisions of Tom Frewen Against Sunday Star-Times ruling 2612, New Zealand Dermatological Society Inc Against Stuff ruling 3216, Tom Frewen Against Stuff and Julie Fogarty Against Newshub ruling 3058. The relevant principle is Principle (10), which says publications should be independent and free from obligations to their news sources and avoid situations which might compromise such independence. The Principle says: “Where a story is enabled by sponsorship, gift or financial inducement, that sponsorship, gift or financial inducement should be declared.”
12. In Tom Frewen Against Stuff, the Council said:
The Press Council is of the view that if material is being published in a way that makes it look as if it is genuine news, it should, at least, be held to the same standards as news content. It is on this basis that the complaint was considered.
13. We accept it may be the case that the Advertising Standards Authority could consider the substantive content of this article. However, it is the Media Council’s task to ensure that articles that feature sponsored material do not mislead the reader into thinking that they contain editorial content at the time of first publication and its initial reading. The question is whether, at that point of initial reading, the sponsored nature of the content should have been “declared” under Principle (10). That is a central issue that is considered by the Media Council and in respect of which it has jurisdiction.
14. We do not overlook that when the article appeared, there was reference “this article first appeared in The House of Wellness magazine”. Also, at the end of the article, in what appeared to be an advertisement, there was the statement that “The House of Wellness is produced in partnership with Chemist Warehouse”.
15. We do not think that these references change the impression that this article was of an editorial nature. Indeed, the reference to be it being taken from another magazine would tend to confirm that it is of an editorial nature and not an advertisement.
Consideration against the Principles
16. In his complaint, Mr Aquino cited Principles (1) Accuracy, Fairness, and Balance, and (4) Comment and Fact. The Council notes Principles (10) Conflicts of Interest and (12) Corrections are also relevant.
17. Stuff admits it failed to disclose the paid sponsorship nature of the article. This is a breach of Principle (10), which requires sponsorships to be declared.
18. Stuff acted responsibly in obtaining and having the content approved by TAPS, which is a service for advertisements. However, the article was mistakenly not presented as an advertisement. As an article, it presented the opinion of a naturopath as fact, breaching Principle (4).
19. Principle (12) Corrections says “A publication’s willingness to correct errors enhances its credibility and, often, defuses complaint.” The Council expects publishers to act promptly correcting errors. In this case, given the obvious and fundamental nature of the error, the Council is not satisfied Stuff acted quickly enough.
20. Stuff published the article on 22 March and Mr Aquino complained to Stuff on 23 March. The editor of The House of Wellness magazine responded to Mr Aquino on 24 March, noting the TAPS approval number had been added to the article. Mr Aquino was not satisfied with the response and complained to the Media Council on 26 March.
21. Stuff says it added the sponsorship information to the article on 25 March, after receiving Mr Aquino’s complaint. However, on 28 March, neither the sponsorship information nor the qualifier was shown on the original version of the article. On 1 April, the editor of Stuff advised the story was sponsored content and “has been now badged as such.”
22. Based on the information before the Council, the Council believes the sponsorship information and qualifier were not added until 1 April, 10 days after Mr Aquino complained to Stuff. The Council finds this was not sufficiently prompt to meet the requirements of Principle (12).
Decision: The complaint is Upheld by unanimous decision.
Council members considering the complaint were Hon Raynor Asher (Chair), Hank Schouten, Tim Watkin, Katrina Bennett, Ben France-Hudson, Jo Cribb, Judi Jones, Alison Thom, Richard Pamatatau.
Rosemary Barraclough declared a conflict of interest and left the meeting.
Guy MacGibbon declared a conflict of interest and did not vote.