"Are you not entertained?" This was the question originally asked by antipodean Thespian, Russell Crowe, in his portrayal of Maximus Decimus Meridius in Gladiator. The question was recently repeated by another famously uncompromising antipodean, Ange Postecoglu, manager of the mighty Tottenham Hotspur, following his team's 4-3 vanquishing of Manchester United in the Carabao Cup.

This turn of phrase came to mind yesterday, not only because Spurs won again in the Carabao Cup, defeating Liverpool 1-0 (in case you're interested), but because it coincided with the Advertising Standards Authority's rather surprising decision to uphold 75 spurious complaints about a series of 6 poster ads published by Wahed Invest Ltd, an online Halal investment platform, on the grounds that they caused serious or widespread offence. Take a look at Wahed's ads and ask yourself, "Are you not offended?" Well, I'm not, and I find myself wondering how serious or widespread the offence caused by these ads really was.  

And the more you look at this decision, the more there is to unpack.

What did the ads look like and say?

In September and October 2024, six posters for Wahed's halal or Islamic financial services appeared on various Transport for London (TfL) services, including on the Tube and on buses.

The posters contained various images, including of US dollar and Euro banknotes on fire, and of a man holding an open briefcase filled with US dollar and Euro banknotes on fire. One of the posters included text saying:

 "Charging people to borrow money was once called exploitation. Sadly, that perception has changed and now interest has caused a massive wealth gap, enriching the few while the majority get poorer."

Some ads also referred to 'Riba', the Arabic word for 'excess', which refers to the prohibition of interest under Islamic law. The claim that charging interest is exploitative and is the cause of the wealth gap is pretty tendentious, and an over-simplification at best. From what I recall from A-level economics, interest could also be said to be the lubricant of capitalism, which means that most people in the world are richer and enjoy better living standards than ever before. 

However, it seems that none of the complainants challenged Wahed to substantiate that claim. The 75 complaints were all about the burning of the banknotes, but that is a suspiciously large number of complaints.  The CAP Code states that ads must not contain anything that is likely to cause serious or widespread offence. Particular care must be taken to avoid causing offence on certain grounds, including race (which includes nationality). Sadly, the ASA no longer publishes its league table of the 10 most complained-about ads each year, but for context, number 10 in the list for 2017, which appears to be the last year the table was published, achieved 92 complaints. It is hard to avoid the conclusion that this campaign achieved this large number of complaints either due to some kind of coordinated media activity, or because of racism, or a toxic combination of the two. If the man holding the case was an archetypal City gent - pale, male and stale in a pinstripe suit - would so many people have complained?  In other words, were the complainants offended by the brown man or the burning money?

The whiff of racism also comes from the fact that the ads were published in media owned by TfL, which is controlled by the mayor of London, Sadiq Khan. Whatever one may think of Mr Khan - now Sir Sadiq - and his performance as London mayor, it is undeniable that he is the target of considerable racist abuse, particularly online. Was this another trigger for the 75 complainants? Media outlets such as The Spectator, The Telegraph and GB News were publishing criticisms of the campaign last autumn, many of them expressly referring to Mayor Khan.

How did Wahed try to justify their ad?

Wahed claimed that their ads were thought-provoking, but not offensive. Their aim was to allow consumers who are predominantly Muslim to invest in what they would consider to be an ethical manner, consistent with their faith and values. Wahed said a major component of their platform was that it did not charge consumers interest on loans because they believe interest contributes to social and financial inequality. They also believe the concept of inflation is not fully understood, because their customers often keep their money in accounts which do not attract interest and so it loses its value in real terms. The obvious contradiction is not explained. Perhaps Nigel Farage should have put his money into Wahed when Coutts closed his bank account......

Wahed said the burning of banknotes in their ads was designed to be a powerful visual illustration that money stored in a way that was growing at a rate lower than inflation created a decrease in value and purchasing power in real terms. They used US dollar and Euro banknotes because they were among the most recognised currencies in the world and said that even though currencies were an expression of national identity, burning money was not offensive and was often used in phrases such as "money to burn".

One of the notable elements of this decision is that TfL is probably the most conservative, risk-averse of all media owners in the UK. As a consequence, TfL's advertising partner, Global, reviewed the ads and concluded that they complied with TfL's ad policy and the CAP Code. And in an ambudance of caution, Global also submitted the ads to the CAP Copy Advice team, who advised them that the ads were unlikely to raise issues under the CAP Code. 

This is another troubling feature of the decision. If CAP Copy Advice can misjudge the likely impact of an ad, then what's the point of it? For the avoidance of doubt, I think Copy Advice was correct in their assessment - it's the provenance of the complaints that I am concerned about. But if Copy Advice were correct, why did the Investigations Executive come to the opposite conclusion? And assuming that the Executive recommended that the complaint should be upheld, were the ASA Council correct to adopt that recommendation, or is this one of those minority of occasions where they should have taken a more nuanced view?

Gold standard? Or counterfeit complaints?

The ASA Council acknowledged Wahed's view that the burning of banknotes illustrated that money which grew at a rate lower than inflation decreased in value in real terms. However, the ads were shown in an untargeted medium, and so were likely to be seen by many people, including tourists from the United States or Eurozone countries who would have seen the ads and their currencies going up in flames.

The ASA concluded that some people from the US and Eurozone countries would have viewed their currency as being culturally significant and a symbol of their national identity. Although it acknowledged Wahed's view that they had not directly criticised a specific group, and that depictions of burning banknotes were commonly encountered, it considered the burning of banknotes would have caused serious offence to some viewers. The ASA concluded that the ads were likely to cause serious offence and so breached the CAP Code.

This leads on to the final concern, which is the absence of any evidence - or at least any evidence that is cited in the adjudication - to back up these assertions. How many of the complainants were actually from the US or the Eurozone? Would tourists even be aware of the existence of the ASA? Are people from Eurozone countries really that misty-eyed about the Euro? And the Euro is certainly not a symbol of national identity. That's the whole point of it! There seems to be an absence of any evidence to back up the claims of serious and widespread offence. Unfortunately, this is not the first time we've seen the ASA uphold a complaint on the basis of an assessment for which there is little or no evidence.  

It's a shame the ASA did not display the same degree of skepticism when assessing these complaints about burning banknotes as it does when assessing claims about cryptocurrency, not because they are great ads or because they are promoting a great service, but because the integrity of the self-regulatory system demands it. 

So yes, I was entertained by Spurs' home win, but no, I was not offended by Wahed's advertising.