An episode of Target featured hidden camera footage of employees from three different electrical companies working in the Target house. The companies were each given a score out of ten for their employees’ performance. The Authority upheld the complaint that the programme breached the privacy standard: the complainant was identifiable, he had an interest in seclusion in the Target house, the broadcast of the hidden camera footage was an offensive intrusion in the nature of prying, the complainant did not give his informed consent to the broadcast, and there was insufficient public interest in the footage to justify the breach of privacy. The Authority made no order.
Target. Item about man who had had his car wheel clamped questioned legality of wheel clamping in New Zealand. Not upheld (accuracy, law and order, fairness, controversial issues, responsible programming).
Target. Presenter stated that a home owner is not allowed to connect a plug to an electrical appliance without approval from an electrical inspector. Not upheld (accuracy).
Target. Hidden camera trial involving minors attempting to buy R18 game from video game retailers. Not upheld (accuracy).
Target. Inaccurately stated that a food sample from the complainants’ café, Café Cézanne contained faecal coliforms. Upheld (accuracy and fairness). Orders (broadcast (on television and radio) and publication in The New Zealand Herald of statement and apology; $28,068.75 costs to complainants; $10,000 costs to Crown ($5,000 for each broadcast).
Target. Broadcast image of the complainant’s business signage during evaluation of another company. Fairness, not upheld.
Target. Hidden camera trial of taxi companies in Auckland. Balance and fairness, not upheld. Accuracy, subsumed.
Target. Item about the experience of a man who purchased the “Hire A Hubby” franchise for the suburb of Greenlane in Auckland. Accuracy and fairness. Not upheld.
Target. Presenter's comment on what phone operators had said. Privacy. Not upheld.
Target. Item about private chiropractic practice. Balance, accuracy and fairness, not upheld.
Target. Item about formaldehyde in clothing. Accuracy. Upheld. Orders (broadcast of statement, $4,000 costs to Crown).
Target. Hidden camera footage of caregivers. Privacy and fairness. Upheld. Order (broadcast of statement)
Target. Airline check-in procedures. Privacy, fairness. Not upheld.
Target. Suncreen product information. Accuracy, fairness, not upheld.
Target. Product test on sunscreens. Balance, fairness, accuracy. Not upheld.
Target. Use of hidden camera when mechanics attending breakdown. Not upheld (balance, accuracy, fairness).
Target. Wallpaper hangers filmed using hidden cameras and quality of work and price compared. Not upheld (fairness, and editing was reasonable).
A Target programme used a hidden camera to assess whether a car’s wheel alignment had been properly carried out. The footage included pictures of the outside of the business premises, and members of the staff dealing with the customer. Complaint that this was unauthorised filming on private premises and therefore a breach of privacy. Not upheld (privacy).
Target. Episode featured footage of employees of four Hamilton house cleaning services who had been secretly filmed as part of a hidden camera trial; one of the male cleaners had been filmed engaging in improper sexual behaviour. Complaint that the programme was unfair, inaccurate and denigrated tradespeople. Not upheld (good taste and decency, accuracy, fairness, discrimination and denigration). Not applicable (responsible programming).
Target. Episode featured six florists who were graded on their ability to complete an order. Complainants alleged the broadcast had portrayed their business unfairly. Not upheld (fairness).