Who: The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) and We Buy Any Car Ltd t/a webuyanycar.com (WBAC)
Where: United Kingdom
When: 6 August 2025
Law stated as at: 21 August 2025
What happened:
The ASA has upheld complaints against two WBAC ads seen on TV and on a well known video-sharing platform respectively that contrasted the experience of selling cars via WBAC against other car buying sites.
Both ads presented a split experience. A grey, downbeat depiction of “another car buying site” was contrasted with a bright, friendly experience of selling to WBAC. The voice-over suggested that the protagonist in the story, “could get an offer from another car buying site or sell direct to We Buy Any Car” and “save time with a guaranteed sale.” Small on screen text stated, “subject to verifying the actual condition & history of the car. Admin Fee may apply.”
Carwow Ltd and Motorway Online Ltd challenged whether the ads misleadingly implied that:
- it was quicker to sell a car on WBAC than on a competitor website; and
- selling a car on competitor websites was not guaranteed.
Motorway also challenged whether the comparative claims were verifiable.
WBAC response
WBAC argued that its ads did not make comparisons with identifiable competitors. It said that the used car market was broad and the ads referred only generically to “other buying sites” and “dealers.” Therefore, WBAC said that it did not need to hold evidence about the speed at which consumers could sell their car through other car buying services or as to whether other services offered guaranteed sales.
WBAC also said that Carwow and Motorway were not competitors, as they acted as intermediaries connecting sellers with third-party dealers and earned dealer fees, whereas WBAC bought directly from consumers. Nonetheless, it maintained that its sales process was significantly faster than Carwow’s or Motorway’s, citing, among other things, an average online quote time of five seconds and stating that same-day and walk-in sales were common.
On purchase guarantees, WBAC said that it guaranteed to buy cars subject only to limited conditions (fraud, missing documentation, or lack of legal ownership) and that, between November 2024 and January 2025, it had offered to complete the sale following 99.84% of physical inspections. By contrast, WBAC contended that Carwow and Motorway dealers frequently renegotiated or cancelled transactions post inspection, referencing those companies’ terms and conditions and certain consumer reviews. WBAC also stated that further information about the claims made in the ads was available on their website, which was clearly signposted in the ads. Those terms outlined the speed and process of quote generation and appointment booking, purchase guarantees, branch accessibility and average drive times. This information related to WBAC only.
ASA assessment
The ASA upheld the complaints and concluded that the ads were misleading.
The CAP Code and BCAP Code (applicable to the online and TV ads respectively) state that comparisons with identifiable competitors must not mislead or be likely to mislead consumers about either the advertised product or the competing products. Comparisons with identifiable competitors must also be verifiable, meaning that the ad must include or direct consumers to sufficient information to allow them to understand the comparison and check that the claims are accurate.
The ASA ruled that the claim that “Robbie could get an offer from another car buying site or sell direct to We Buy Any Car” would be understood by viewers as a comparison between WBAC and other car buying websites. The stark visual contrast between the grey “other car buying sites” and the bright WBAC setting further emphasised this impression.
On identifiability, the ASA said that by specifically referencing “another car buying site” as a point of comparison in the ads, WBAC had highlighted that the comparison was with that part of the market. The ASA noted that there were several car buying sites and the majority of consumers viewing the ads would be able to identify at least one of them, including Motorway and Carwow. Although their business models were slightly different, the intended audience consisted of consumers considering selling their car, who were likely to view any car buying site through which they could sell their car as a competitor to WBAC. The ASA concluded that the comparisons made in WBAC’s ads were with identifiable competitors, meaning that WBAC should have held evidence for the comparative claims, relating both to itself and to all relevant competitors.
The ASA considered that WBAC had not substantiated the comparative claims: it provided insufficient evidence that sales to WBAC were guaranteed and that competitors did not guarantee sales, and the data evidence relating to the speed of purchase was not adequate to show that WBAC was faster than competitor sites.
On verifiability, while WBAC’s website (to which text in the ad directed consumers) included claims in relation to itself, it did not provide such information on any of its competitors. Consumers could not, therefore, verify the comparative claims.
Overall, the ASA considered that the ads were misleading.
Why this matters:
Companies should carefully consider references to similar businesses in ads, as even generic references, like “other car buying sites” can amount to comparisons with identifiable competitors, triggering additional regulatory requirements associated with the claims and their substantiation. Further, if an ad implies comparative benefits (for example, “guaranteed sale,” “save time”), advertisers must hold robust, like-for-like evidence in relation to both its own products or services and those of relevant competitors. Such evidence should also then be made available to consumers to enable them to verify the ad’s claims for themselves. Not providing verification information where required will render the claims automatically in breach of the advertising codes.
