Who: The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) and Select Specs Ltd (Select Specs)
Where: United Kingdom
When: 12 November 2025
Law stated as at: 25 November 2025
What happened:
The ASA has upheld a complaint against Select Specs in relation to two identical adverts shown on TV and a video-sharing platform, on the grounds that they contained misleading comparisons and price claims.
Select Specs’ adverts featured a green background with two overlapping white circles, with text stating “2 for 1 on prescription glasses” and audio stating “two for the price of one on prescription glasses? Nah. It’s 10 for the price of 1 at Select Specs”. Small text at the bottom of the screen stated the conditions of any purchase, which included “Minimum order £12. Free delivery over £49”. The voiceover also included the following comparison “That’s 10 pairs of prescription glasses delivered free to your door for the price of 1 pair from the high street”, as well as price claims stating “Select Specs £6 specs” and “all from just £6 a pair”.
Specsavers challenged the advert on three grounds:
- The price comparison in relation to “10 pairs of prescription glasses […] for the price of 1 pair from the high street” was misleading.
- The claim in (1) was not verifiable.
- The price claims in the advert were misleading.
Select Specs’ agency, Wagon Films, responded to the complaint by arguing that the comparison was with the general high-street market, not Specsavers, and that it had substantiated the claims through market research against three major high-street retailers, including Specsavers. The agency provided receipts and photographs to demonstrate that comparable glasses from these retailers cost over £60 for a single pair. Wagon Films also highlighted that the advert allowed customers to purchase 10 pairs of glasses for, or less than, the cost of comparable glasses from any of the three high-street retailers used in the comparison. Additionally, consumers could buy differing prescriptions for £60 (including free delivery on orders over £49) unlike typical high-street 2-for-1 offers, which require the same prescription for both pairs.
On ground (1), the ASA determined that consumers would immediately identify the advert comparison as being with Specsavers specifically due to the visual similarity of the advert with Specsavers’ logo and its well-known 2-for-1 offer. The ASA also said that consumers would understand the basis of the comparisons to be against Specsavers’ cheapest glasses. However, Select Specs had made the comparisons with Specsavers’ £70 range and did not account for the fact that Specsavers also offered glasses from £15. This meant that consumers could theoretically purchase four pairs of glasses from Specsavers for £60, with differing prescriptions, not just one pair, as the advert claimed.
On ground (2), the ASA highlighted the requirement of the UK Code of Non-broadcast Advertising and Direct and Promotional Marketing and the Broadcasting Code that comparisons with identifiable competitors must be verifiable, that is, they must include or direct consumers to information that enables them to understand the comparison and check that the claims are accurate. In this case, the ads included text that signposted consumers to a page of Select Specs’ website, but the page did not include any information about the comparison.
On ground (3), while Select Specs did offer £6 glasses, the minimum order requirement was £12 and a £5.95 delivery charge applied to orders under £49. Although information about the conditions of the purchase was provided in small text on the screen, the ASA found that this was not sufficiently prominent to counter the overall impression that consumers could purchase glasses for £6. Further, the delivery charge was not included in the on-screen text.
Why this matters: Even though Select Specs did not expressly refer to Specsavers in its advert, the colours used and similarity to Specsavers’ logo was enough for the ASA to find that consumers would interpret the advert as a comparison with Specsavers. The ruling therefore highlights the risk of making references, whether direct or indirect, to competitors in advertising and the need to ensure that any comparisons can be verified by consumers (together with the provision of access to information to facilitate such verification). Where conditions apply to offers, such as minimum order requirements or delivery fees, this should also be set out prominently and clearly.
