São Paulo-based agency DM9, part of Omnicom’s DDB network, is facing a major investigation by Cannes Lions over its “Efficient Way to Pay” campaign for Consul Appliances.
Awarded the prestigious Creative Data Grand Prix (and a Bronze Lion in Creative Commerce) at the 2025 festival, the campaign aimed to help low-income Brazilian families replace old, energy-inefficient appliances by offering repayments directly from the savings on their electricity bills.
The initiative was praised for its innovative use of real-time energy data and behavioural insight, positioning it as a standout example of socially conscious marketing.
But just days after the accolade, the integrity of DM9’s submission has come under scrutiny. An anonymous whistle-blower provided Ad Age with a version of DM9’s Cannes entry video, alleging that key segments were manipulated, ranging from digitally altered customer testimonials to doctored footage of a TED Talk by North Carolina State Senator DeAndrea Salvador and a CNN Brasil news report.
A spokesperson for Cannes Lions confirmed the organisation is taking the allegations “extremely seriously” and is actively investigating.
It’s not yet clear whether the probe focuses solely on the video submission or whether it could lead to questions about the campaign’s execution itself. Meanwhile, CNN Brasil has formally complained to DM9 and Consul’s parent company, Whirlpool, over the manipulated use of its content, noting that the journalist featured in the clip left the broadcaster in 2022.
DM9’s chief creative officer, Ícaro Doria, acknowledged the investigation but defended the campaign, stating the “work is very legit.”
The controversy lands at an awkward time for DDB, which was named Cannes Lions’ Network of the Year just days earlier. DM9 itself took home 21 Lions during the festival.
The incident has reignited long-standing industry concerns about the authenticity of award submissions and the role of intellectual property within them. Cannes Lions has weathered similar controversies before, including cases involving “ghost ads”, campaigns that never actually ran in the real world but were created simply to win awards.
Notably, DM9 was at the centre of one such debate in 1999 with a Gold Lion-winning print ad for Parmalat ketchup titled “Tongue.” After it was awarded, questions emerged over whether it had been published before the Cannes deadline. While the agency insisted it had in a car magazine, the placement was considered an implausible choice for a food brand, and suspicions lingered.
The Cannes Lions controversy surrounding DM9 isn’t the only scandal raising eyebrows this year. Another Grand Prix winner, Budweiser’s “One Second Ads” campaign, has been hit with a copyright claim from Sony Music, after the brand and its agency Africa Creative DDB proudly announced they spent “$0 on music rights.”
The campaign, which ran one-second snippets of famous songs in radio and audio spots, was built around the claim that you only need a second to recognise a song, and, apparently, that one second is free.
While clever in execution, the move drew sharp criticism from creatives and musicians alike for exploiting artists’ work without compensation.
“Budweiser didn’t just use the music without paying for it; they bragged about it,” wrote Understory founder Ben Liebmann in a widely shared LinkedIn post. “So, what did the jurors do? They handed them a Grand Prix… A shame there isn’t a Piracy category as they’d have taken that home too.”
The problem? As Dave Chase, founder of LSTNR, wrote in The Drum, there is “no such thing as a ‘one-second rule’ in copyright law.”
Whether Budweiser used recognisable copyrighted material without paying for it, or paid and pretended otherwise for marketing effect, neither scenario bodes well for a brand that positions itself as “The Beer Behind The Music.”
What’s more troubling, Chase argues, is that this wasn’t a loophole the jury missed; it was the very thing they rewarded. “The jury didn’t reward creativity,” commented Shez Mehra, CMO at Audio Branding, on LinkedIn. “They rewarded loopholes (which don’t exist).”
Richard Kirstein of Resilient Music added that even two to three seconds of a recognisable song can be protected, and Brazilian copyright law is no exception. In other words, if Budweiser skipped licensing fees, it’s an infringement. If it paid and pretended not to, it’s a marketing stunt built on misleading bravado. Either way, Chase makes a compelling point: “You wouldn’t hand a Lion to a campaign that proudly bragged about dodging freelance fees.” So why are we celebrating one that boasts about not paying musicians?
Sources close to the matter told B&T that, although official legal proceedings have not been initiated, some rights lawyers have confirmed that they are seeking legal advice on the matter.
While the DDB–Sony case is unrelated to the DM9 investigation, both situations point to a troubling pattern: creative submissions that push the boundaries of legality and ethics, and award juries that sometimes celebrate them nonetheless.
Whether it’s the manipulation of video content or the calculated evasion of licensing, these cases force the industry to reckon with a fundamental question: where is the line between bold creativity and exploitation? And while Cannes continues to celebrate groundbreaking ideas, these moments are a reminder of the responsibility that comes with setting a global standard.
