Tom Ford International dodges legal stoush with Ad Standards Australia after Rozalia Russian post

When Rozalia Russian told followers a perfume was “summertime in a bottle”, the advertising watchdog was quick to issue a breach, before the truth was uncovered.

Rozalia Russian is a popular Melbourne influencer. Picture: Instagram

As Gertrude Stein might have said, “An ad is an ad, is an ad.”

Except she didn’t and except when it’s not.

Which is why Ad Standards Australia has found itself in a legal stoush with Tom Ford International.

The global beauty brand’s lawyers struck following the advertising watchdog’s crackdown on a post from Melbourne influencer Rozalia Russian.

Ad Standards Australia thought they were onto a sure thing when they issued Tom Ford with a breach after the sartorially sublime Russian posted her picture holding Tom Ford perfume with the caption “summertime in a bottle”.

The alleged breach followed an amendment to its code of ethics in February that states influencers must clearly define if they are being paid by a company in a social media post.

Rozalia Russian and husband, Nick.

The #ad or #paidpartnership doesn’t fit well with many brands who prefer native advertising from influencers to look like they use and endorse products to their followers as part of their daily routine.

Bachelor star Anna Heinrich was the first to cop a breach for not clearly defining she was paid for wearing a dress by Runway The Label. The post was later edited to say it was indeed a paid partnership ad.

But Russian was not paid by Tom Ford International for the post, nor was there an agreement between the parties.

“A law firm has requested an independent review of the Community Panel’s determination on behalf of Tom Ford,” an Ad Standards spokesperson confirmed to Page 13.

Read gobbledygook, for the lawyers have entered the fray.

“Given Rozalia Russian’s prominent following and the nature of her previous posts, the way the product was presented and the complaint received from a consumer, it was considered appropriate to consider the complaint and the Community Panel determined that it was an ad and therefore covered by the Code.”

Ah, the sweet smell of litigation. Looks as if this isn’t going anywhere anytime soon.