This weeks rulings have been published. The following advertisers have been formally investigated by the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA).

Rulings for: 05 July 2017

• Berrimans Pet Food Ltd – Upheld

A magazine ad for Berrimans Pet Food, seen on 25 January 2017, featured the headline “TOO MUCH PROTEIN IS BAD”. The main body of text stated “Science shows that protein obsession may be one of the main causes for the rise we are seeing in obesity, cancer, diabetes and heart disease. After years of intense research t…

• Inspop.com Ltd t/a confused.com – Upheld

A paid-for search result on Google, an email, a TV ad, a website and a regional press ad for the price comparison website Confused.com, seen between December 2016 and January 2017:

1. The paid-for search result on Google said “Cheap Car Insurance – No.1 for car savings – confused .com”.
2. The email, seen on 12 January 2017, said “Confused.com is No.1 for car savings. Here are six reasons why we’re no.1 for car savings. 50% could save £283.51 on their car insurance! Save on average £2,801 when buying a new car! You could save on breakdown cover. Save up to £79 on your car’s next full service. You could save up to £343 on multi-car insurance. That’s a saving of up to £3,554! No one offers drivers more opportunities to save on their car. Find out all the ways you could save. Based on online independent research by Consumer Intelligence (September ’16). 50% of car insurance customers could save £283.51”.
3. The TV ad featured James Corden and included a voice-over which said, “Drivers win at Confused.com, No.1 for Car Savings”. The ad included prominent on-screen text which stated “Confused.com – Drivers Win – No.1 for Car Savings”. Small text below that claim said “No.1 for car savings – based on opportunities to save on car-related products. Correct as of Nov ’16. See Confused.com/no1”.
4. The website www.Confused.com, said on the home page “No.1 for car savings. No one offers drivers more opportunities to save on their car”. A “Find Out More” link led to another page, which repeated the six reasons why the advertiser claimed it was No.1 for car savings, referred to in ad (b).
5. The newspaper ad, seen on Friday 27 January and Monday 30 January 2017, said “Confused.com – No.1 for car savings – No one offers drivers more ways to save on their car”.

•  Intellectual Property & Software Ltd t/a 21.co.uk – Upheld in part

A TV ad for www.21.co.uk, an online gambling site, seen in March 2017, featured a man in a tuxedo sitting at a blackjack table. A voice-over stated, “His heart is pounding. His body is still. He shuffles his chips as he thinks. Heart versus head. Emotion versus reason. He makes his move. He makes his own luck.” Ther…

• Jet2holidays Ltd – Upheld

An email from Jet2holidays, received on 14 January 2017, had the subject line “Psst! Our £100pp* SALE has started!” and text within the email stated “Make way for the Jet2holidays New Year SALE with an incredible £100 OFF per person* on all holidays and city breaks”. Small print at the bottom of the email included “…

• Purple Bricks Company Ltd t/a Purplebricks – Upheld

A website for the online estate agent Purplebricks, www.purplebricks.com/reviews, seen in July 2016, featured nine testimonials from consumers including claims of how much they had saved in fees by using Purplebricks. The first three testimonials stated “Mrs Kay, Blackburn, March 2016. Fees saved £5,682”; “Mrs Roach…

• TUI UK Ltd t/a Thomson – Not Upheld

The website www.thomson.co.uk, for Thomson, seen on 25 December 2016, contained a search page for holidays on which large text stated “SALE NOW ON. Book your next holiday for less … SAVE AN EXTRA £100 on summer holidays with code SALE100”.

• TUI UK Ltd t/a Thomson and First Choice – Upheld

Two websites, for TUI UK Ltd’s First Choice and Thomson brands, both seen on 4 August 2016.

1. The First Choice website www.firstchoice.co.uk, featured a listing for the Riu Palace Pacific hotel. Text stated “£1620 Per Person Includes £180pp discount”.
2. The Thomson website www.thomson.co.uk, featured a listing for the same hotel. Text stated “£1638 Per Person Includes a £162pp discount”.

• Your Money Management Ltd t/a haveihadppi.co.uk – Not Upheld

A Google paid-for search ad for the claims management company www.haveihadppi.co.uk, seen on 23 February 2017, stated “Asking ‘Have I Got PPI’? – The Deadline is August 2019. www.haveihadppi.co.uk/Reclaim/PPI”.

• iCandy World Ltd – Upheld

A website for iCandy pushchairs, www.icandyworld.com, seen on 5 September 2016, stated “… The world’s first single bartprint double pushchair … In 2007 … we launched the world’s first ever single to double pushchair in a single bartprint …”.

ASA adjudications provide important guidance to advertisers on how the Advertising Codes are to be interpreted. They act as a transparent record of their policy for consumers, media, government, industry and society at large on what is and isn’t acceptable in advertising.

If you are unsure how your activities fit within the rules, please take advantage of our Bespoke Advert Review service. Our fast and confidential service is essential for advertisers, agencies, media owners/providers, who want to check how their prospective advertisements (broadcast and non-broadcast) measure up against the UK Advertising Codes.

Contact us today, and find out how we can help.

Have you an opinion on the above, got an article you wish to share, or interested in our products? We’re love to hear from you. Email us and get in touch today.

Previous rulings: 28 June 2017