Who: The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) and Wizz Air Hungary Ltd (Wizz Air)
Where: United Kingdom
When: 27 November 2024
Law stated as at: 16 December 2024
What happened:
Wizz Air’s paid-for online advert, which stated “Fly Wizz Air – one of the greenest choices in air travel”, was spotted by the ASA’s Active Ad Monitoring system. The ASA questioned whether the claim – “one of the greenest choices in air travel” – was misleading.
In its response, Wizz Air cited various justifications as to why it felt the statement was accurate, including:
- Wizz Air has committed billions of euros to aid decarbonisation efforts of airlines.
- Its fleet was the youngest and most carbon efficient in Europe and was being actively renewed to bring in planes with reduced fuel consumption.
- It had been independently verified as having the lowest carbon emissions per passenger in Europe at 52g carbon dioxide per revenue passenger kilometres.
- It had invested in the research and development of sustainable aviation fuel and had committed to purchasing such fuel from two of the companies it had invested in.
The ASA considered that consumers would understand the claim in the ad to mean that Wizz Air had one of the smallest environmental impacts across all airline providers operating in and out of the UK.
The UK Code of Non-broadcast Advertising and Direct and Promotional Marketing (CAP Code) states that claims such as “greener” and “friendlier” must be made clear (rule 11.1), and be substantiated by direct comparison with identified competitors (rule 11.3). Comparative green claims also need to direct a consumer to sufficient information that would allow them to understand the comparison and, therefore, check that the claim was accurate – or be able to ask someone suitably qualified to do so.
The ASA found that, although Wizz Air may have had a basis for its claim, it did not include information about this basis in the ad. It also did not point consumers to information from which they could understand the comparison. The ASA therefore found that the ad was misleading and breached the CAP Code, specifically rule 3.5 (misleading adverts), rules 3.33 and 3.35 (comparisons with identifiable competitors), and rules 11.1 and 11.3 (environmental claims).
Why this matters:
The ASA published a blog post in April 2024 highlighting its success in monitoring and enforcing against misleading green claims in the airline sector, thanks to its Active Ad Monitoring system. The ASA said that this “sweep” had allowed it to shift its focus to other priority areas beyond the airline industry.
In Wizz Air’s case, the ASA still identified its misleading advert, demonstrating that the regulator continues to leverage its enhanced capabilities from Active Ad Monitoring in this area. Airline providers should remain vigilant when it comes to green claims.
Across industries, advertisers should ensure that, even where they have a justifiable basis for their green claim, they adhere to the rest of the ASA’s guidance on environmental claims to ensure ongoing compliance.
