Who: The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) and MPJ Invest Ltd t/a Money Saving Tricks; Peak Performance Advertising LLC t/a ExpertsInMoney.Co; Digital Results Group GmbH t/a UK Life Protection, British Life Cover Quotes, British Life Benefits
Where: United Kingdom
When: 1 February 2023 and 22 February 2023
Law stated as at: 10 March 2023
What happened:
The ASA issued three rulings in cases where ads were misleading since they falsely implied that the advertisers’ websites could directly provide life insurance quotes, while they were only lead generation services. The ASA also considered a number of other issues related to advertising insurance services. These rulings form part of the ASA’s work on lead generation marketing.
The first ruling concerned a paid-for social media post by a blogger Emily Harding which contained an ad for life insurance and referred to MoneySavingTricks.co.uk; and two website pages for MPJ Invest Ltd t/a Moneysaving tricks featuring ads for the same life insurance. The website pages also contained the following text: “With MoneySavingTricks.co.uk it’s easy to get a free quote and see what you could get” and “Compare quotes from leading life insurance providers” which was accompanied by logos of various well-known insurance companies. Consumers were further asked to answer certain questions and to provide their name.
The ASA considered that the overall impression of the ads on the website would make consumers believe that they could obtain quotes for life insurance directly from the Moneysaving tricks website. In reality, however, the website was a lead generation service – a service which sells consumers’ details to third parties who pay to receive leads generated by the ad. Since the company failed to disclose its real role and falsely implied that the website was a comparison service that could directly provide online life insurance quotes, the ASA ruled that these ads were misleading.
There also were other issues challenged and upheld by the ASA in this ruling:
- The ads which appeared on Emily Harding’s page were misleading since they falsely implied that they were published by the blogger rather than MJP Invest
- The claims in ads such as “Why don’t more mums know about this”, “New life insurance for Dads over 50”, were misleading because they falsely implied that the advertised products were new within the group referred in the claim
- The claims such as “get life insurance quotes from vetted, FCA authorised brokers and insurers” were misleading because they implied that the company used advisers who had been accredited by the Financial Conduct Authority, and the ASA did not receive any evidence of this.
Another ruling looked at an ad for Experts in Money on the Express website, which featured the following text: “People Born 1941-1971 are due a large surprise this month”, a picture of a woman holding a document that resembled a financial statement, and a text stating “Learn more” beneath. This link directed to Experts in Money website which showed the text stating “Adults over 50 Could Get Approved for up to £10,000 Thanks To A ‘Little-Known’ Policy (If They Do This)”.
The ASA again ruled that since the company did not reveal its role as a lead generating service, the ad was misleading. The ASA highlighted that the information via the link implied that consumers could receive the money if they followed the instructions of this page – however, it was not the case. The ASA acknowledged the disclaimer available on the website, namely: “This is an advertorial and not actual news articles, blog, or consumer protection update”, but it did not deem it sufficient to overcome the overall impression on the website that it provided the opportunity to apply for a policy and receive money.
Another issue considered in this case was the claim “People Born 1941-1971 are due a large surprise this month” which the ASA found misleading. Consumers were likely to be misled by a reference to “surprise” which meant not the money that they had not been expecting, but a life insurance policy which depended on a number of factors, rather than was applicable to everyone in this age group.
The final ruling related to the ads for life insurance shown on the website for UK Life Protection and three paid-for social media ads which led to this website.
The ASA came to the same conclusion, considering that all the ads were misleading since they implied that the website could provide online quotes and did not reveal that it only collected consumers’ personal information to further pass it to other businesses. In this case, consumers were asked to provide their personal details and afterwards they were directed to a final page on the website containing the text: “Thank you. One of our expert team will be calling you very soon to discuss your life cover quotes”.
The ads were also considered misleading due to a number of other factors: they omitted material information such the basis of the cover levels – and life insurance quotes would likely be dependent on a number of factors (for example, age, health, gender and lifestyle); the claims “save up to 65% on Life Insurance Cover”, “Best Policy, Best Price. That is our promise to you and your family” and “Try it Risk Free with our 30 day Money Back Guarantee” had not been substantiated.
Why this matters:
These rulings show that in cases where a company acts as a lead generation service, meaning it simply gathers information about consumers to pass it to third parties who had paid to receive leads generated by the ad, rather than offers the advertised services itself, it is important to disclose this fact in the ad and make clear that personal information is collected for lead generation. In other words, advertisers should not claim or imply that they act for purposes outside their trade or business, and they have to make clear the commercial intent of their marketing. These rulings also provide some further useful guidance when advertising insurance services.
