Sophie Cachia is under investigation by Ad Standards over sponsored post

Influencer Sophie Cachia broke ad standards with a sponsored Instagram post for a phone charging cable that she described as “life-changing.”

Ms. Cachia didn’t make it clear that her post was a paid ad for Cygnett, a tech accessories company and even said in her story that it was “not spun”.†

However, the Ad Standards Community Panel ruled that it was in fact advertising and noted that Ms. Cachia is an ambassador for Cygnett.

In an unexpected twist, Cygnett threw Ms. Cachia under the bus in his response to the panel, causing the… Australian survivor star uploaded the post without “pre-approval” and the brand should not be held responsible for its belongings.

The watchdog confirmed a complaint by a member of the public in its June 8 ruling, which found that Ms Cachia’s post “violated section 2.7” of the AANA Code of Ethics, which specifically requires advertisers to ensuring that all branded content or native advertising ‘is’ clearly distinguishable to the relevant audience.

Ms. Cachia’s post on Instagram Stories showed her holding up a charging cable that read: ‘Found my baby!!! @cygnett Nobody charges my phone like this cord here.

“If I lose it, it’s devastating (aka Bobby steals it for his iPad). I will never go back to any other cord. Not spontaneous, just life-changing when you need your phone constantly and it’s charged SO fast.’

She added a link to the Cygnett website.

Ms. Cachia didn’t make it clear that her post was a paid ad for Cygnett, a tech accessories company, and even said in her story that it was “not spun.” However, the Ad Standards Community Panel ruled that it was in fact advertising and noted that Ms. Cachia is an ambassador for Cygnett

An audience member later complained to Ad Standards, “Sophie is clearly paid to be a permanent ambassador for this product/brand and must clearly show that it is a paid post.”

In response to the watchdog, Cygnett acknowledged it has “an agreement with Sophie Cachia regarding paid branding recommendations on social media,” but said this particular post was uploaded with no “inside information” from the company.

Cygnett explained that the post was uploaded ‘outside’ [Ms Cachia’s] paid agreement” with the brand and was “not included in the content calendar”, nor was it “in any way solicited or supported by Cygnett”.

An audience member complained to Ad Standards: “Sophie is clearly paid to be a permanent ambassador for this brand and must clearly show that it is a paid post.” (Pictured: One of Ms. Cachia’s sponsored posts for Cygnett that wasn’t complained about)

Cygnett acknowledged its obligations to label all sponsored posts as such and puts the blame on the ambassador, adding, “If an influencer decides to post without a brand’s permission or knowledge, why is the brand being held accountable?”

The Ad Standards Community Panel confirmed the complaint and agreed that the post was an advertisement, but that it was not clearly distinguished as such by Ms. Cachia.

The panel noted that her post had many features of sponsored content that would be easily recognized by Ms. Cachia’s followers, including the link to Cygnett’s website, the positioning of the product in her hand, and the glowing approval.

However, Ms Cachia created ambiguity by saying it was ‘not spun’ and the panel therefore ruled that ‘the post was not clearly distinguishable as advertising’.

Cygnett said in her response to the panel that Ms Cachia (seen on Australian Survivor) shared the post without “pre-approval” and that the brand should not be held responsible for her belongings