Claims on http://www.uncut-dvds.co.uk, for a DVD of a horror film, stated Blood of the Vampire (uncut) .
The complainant, who had purchased the DVD and found that certain scenes were missing, challenged whether the claim that the advertised product was the uncut version was misleading and could be substantiated.
Uncut-DVDs.co.uk (Uncut) said the DVD offered was exactly as described and shown and was verifiably the uncut version of the film. They said they were already aware of the complainant who would have been aware of the running time when they purchased the film from Uncut. They provided links to other websites selling the same film.
Assessment: Complaint Upheld
The ASA understood that the advertised film had been released in 1958 and had, at that time, been submitted to the BBFC who had made cuts to nine scenes for cinema release. We also understood that the film had been resubmitted to the BBFC in 2005 for DVD release and no cuts had been made. However, we understood that the BBFC’s records did not allow them to tell whether the film submitted in 2005 was the full length theatrical version or the BBFC cut version.
We considered that to substantiate the claim that the advertised version was uncut, the advertiser needed to demonstrate that it was the full length theatrical version, i.e. the same as that which was originally submitted to the BBFC. We considered that they might demonstrate that by, for example, showing that their DVD version had been transferred from the original uncut print of the film, or by showing that it contained shots and scenes that had been cut by the BBFC.
However, because they had not done so, we concluded that the claim was unsubstantiated and therefore misleading.
The claim breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1 (Misleading advertising) and 3.7 (Substantiation).
The claim must not appear again in its current form. We told Uncut-DVDs to ensure they held evidence to show that their DVDs were uncut versions.
