The newspaper published half page features that looked like articles above half page ads for the products featured in the supposed articles. This happened in relation to three separate products.
The ASA said that The Express was "intentionally attempting to circumvent the [advertising] Code by asserting the top of the pages were not advertising".
The Daily Express said that in each case journalist Alison Coleman had "followed the usual journalistic practice of speaking to [the company involved] as part of her research. She sent them the finished text to check for factual inaccuracies," said its response to the ASA's accusations.
The ASA rejected the Express's claims that the pieces were normal articles.
"Although we accepted that, at first sight, the articles appeared distinct from the ads that featured below it, we considered the information presented in the articles complemented and added to the information provided in the ads," said the ASA's adjudication.
"We noted that the same or substantially similar articles had appeared on different dates; we considered that whilst it was normal for advertising copy to be repeated on different dates, it was unusual for genuine editorial pieces to appear in the same or similar form in the same publication on different dates," it said.
The ASA said that the content of the articles did not appear to be independent or unbiased, and merited being labelled as not impartial to protect readers. "The articles were always and uniquely favourable to the product featured in the accompanying ad and contained claims that have been or would be likely to be prohibited in advertisements," it said.
The Express said that the journalist was not paid by the companies whose products were advertised but the ASA said that there was a clear commercial relationship between them and the newspaper.
"We concluded that the routine publication of these pages and the nature of the articles strongly suggested a commercial arrangement existed between the newspaper and the advertiser and that the advertiser exerted a sufficient degree of control over the content of the articles to warrant the term "Advertisement feature" or the like being placed above the articles," it said.
The adverts and articles featured supposed weight loss aid LIPObind; a magnetic device supposed to relieve menopause symptoms; and a copper device supposed to help joint pain. In the case of all three products the ASA also ruled that claims were made in the adverts or the accompanying advertorials that could not be backed up and breached its rules on truthfulness and substantiation.
Advertorials that fail to make clear that a trader has paid for a promotion can also be prosecuted as a breach the Consumer Protection (Unfair Trading) Regulations 2008. The maximum penalty in the event of a conviction would be a two year prison sentence for the publishers.
