This came as a blow to Standard Bank, which launched the advertising campaign soon after British bank Barclays bought Absa, seemingly playing up its local ownership as a competitive advantage.

The ruling against Standard Bank came after the ASA agreed to deviate from its normal practice and deal with an anonymous complaint. It does not usually entertain anonymous complaints.

This unnamed complainant said the claim that Standard Bank was “101% South African” was a “mathematical impossibility and therefore an inherent lie”.

The complainant said the bank’s claim was also “misleading” because Standard Bank had no control over its foreign ownership.

According to Standard Bank’s reports, foreign investors account for 20,9% of shareholders.

The bank’s advertising agency, TBWA Hunt Lascaris, argued the advertisement was clearly “hyperbole”, not meant to be taken literally.

The agency said the “101% South African” claim was not about the “numeric value” but was meant to depict the “attitude and behaviour of South Africans”.

But the ASA disagreed, saying there was “nothing before (us) to show that this is indeed the case”.

It ruled that people would take the claim seriously. “The commercial creates a misleading impression and contravenes (the advertising code),” the ASA said.

Standard Bank’s marketing director, Sarah-Anne Orphanides, said that “we received the ruling on Thursday, and we submitted an appeal immediately based on a number of grounds” — but she would not elaborate on these grounds.

“We have taken no action yet … and we are waiting for them to come back to us, but we understand the ruling and obviously will comply,” she said.

ASA communications executive Dineo Pooe said the bank would still have to withdraw the adverts despite the looming appeal because “this ruling still stands until then”.

“This appeal will take place sometime next year, probably in February,” she said.

The bank declined to say how much the “101% South African” campaign had cost.