At McSwan’s, the chef has a heavy hand on the salt, gently crushes the fish fillets and spills the drinks. Posted on October 13 on YouTube, a 17-minute video, viewed over 11 million times, invites us into the kitchen of Swan and Neo, two child stars of the platform who have 5.7 million subscribers. In this episode, the younger of the two brothers – Swan – cooks fast food for his older brother, who plays fussy customers.
The McDonald’s name is never mentioned, but the cardboard trays are those of the American restaurant giant, whose logo can be found on the chef’s apron and chef’s hat, while large yellow “M” s on a green background are everywhere and that the splashback, above the hobs, uses the famous slogan “I’m lovin ‘it”.
This video was not to the liking of UFC-Que Choisir, which announced, the same day, to have lodged a complaint against McDonald’s France for “deceptive commercial practices”. The consumer association maintains that “To conceal the advertising nature of a message, thus letting the community of an influencer believe in disinterested advice, is a deceptive commercial practice punishable”. McDonald’s sent Agence France-Presse (AFP) a reaction in which it believes that the complaint “Absolutely does not reflect the nature of [ses] practice “, and said to think about filing a complaint for “Malicious prosecution”.
In a message to Sunday Newspaper (JDD), the mother of the two influencers assured that there was “no partnership with McDonald’s, no financial support”, and that “McDonald’s did not intervene at all in the making of this video”, by which her children have only wanted to “follow a trend on social networks”. According to the JDD, McDonald’s also stated that no support has been given for the production of this content.
Some influencers “closely followed”
This emerging dispute is not the first in the short history of influencers, these stars of social networks that brands seek to ensure their promotion. In July, former reality TV star Nabilla Vergara agreed to pay a fine of € 20,000 for promoting stock exchange services, failing to mention that she was being paid to do so. The Directorate-General for Competition, Consumer Affairs and Fraud Control (DGCCRF) deemed its communication “Misleading” for two reasons : not only were his words not presented as an advertisement, but they were “Likely to mislead the consumer on the characteristics of the service and the expected results”.
You have 66.97% of this article to read. The rest is for subscribers only.