UK Advertising Standards Authority Says Hikvision's UK Government Claims "Appear To Be Illegal"

I think the issue more generally for the UK Security Media, much like the US "Security Media", is that, since they take advertising, they really strive hard to avoid criticizing anyone.

Related, Roy Cooper Speaks About The UK Security Market

#2, thanks for the detailed feedback; I'll let Conor respond to the specifics.

Some thoughts, high-level (and this applies to our reporting on US companies such as Evolv and Verkada). One, the act of reporting these things publicly brings positive attention to these issues, which reminds people of risks to consider. Two, any individual effort may not be successful, but we have been doing this long enough to have seen it can have a real impact on governments. Third, it is not that time-consuming or difficult for us to file a complaint or make a statement. Fourth, sometimes asking can result in other actions or coverage or impact that we did not expect.

For any individual effort, the probability is probably in line with what you suggest, but we find it worth the effort to try for a broader, longer-term impact.

It's unfortunate but unsurprising to hear that Trading Standards may be unlikely to pursue. This tends to be the case with US regulators too. John does a good job of explaining why we would report it despite this.

Because Hikvision haven’t provably actually sold anything off the back of this claim (Hikvision don’t sell direct in the UK, they sell through agents and installers),

In this case, Hikvision's claims went on to be touted by UK integrators including ADK Security, and DVS, who posted an oddly enthusiastic video on LinkedIn, noting after explaining Hikvision's letter "so please do get in contact with DVS for all of your Hikvision needs." So, Hikvision may have sold off the back of this claim, though I don't have numbers to that effect.

The Crown Prosecution Service are unlikely to bring a case against Hikvision because they’re not nailed-on to win it, plus it’s marginal on the ‘in the public interest’ test

Agreed regarding the unlikelihood of a case since it may not be a clear victory, though I hope it would do well on the public interest test as you have a nationally-distributed misrepresentation of an endorsement by the UK government of a company your government has identified as a national security risk. If it lands on someone's desk who sees it that way, I think they will see the public interest as high.

Because their enforcement budget would be exhausted in the first encounters with Hikvision’s legal team.

I suspect you mean this hyperbolically but yes in general the significant disparities between what the government can spend on cases versus the defendant is a big problem in the US too that shouldn't but does affect what cases are pursued.

Interesting about Conservatives at Trading Standards, that's good to know.

unlikely to approve a prosecution of a massive contributor to the local economy because some anti-Chinese Americans are complaining

For the record, Will is Canadian and I am Canadian and Irish, and we are not "anti-Chinese" though we have been critical of China's government and its state corporations.