Who: The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) and Banquist Ltd t/a Winedrops (Winedrops)
Where: United Kingdom
When: 5 November 2025
Law stated as at: 24 November 2025
What happened:
The complaints related to three ads for Winedrops, an online wine retailer.
‘Same wine’ claim
A paid-for social media ad featured a man describing “declassified” wines as surplus wine from world-famous chateaux, sold on in bulk to third-party sellers who then re-package it and sell it to consumers at a reduced price. He claimed that he just rebottled and relabelled the wine, which was the same 100 point wine as originally sold by the chateaux, and sold it at 95%+ off the usual price. The complainants challenged whether the claim that the wine was “the same” as that sold by the prestigious châteaux was misleading and could be substantiated, given that these chateaux also sold “second wines” under other labels.
In response, Winedrops claimed that the wine was not a “second wine”, but the same blend, sold in bulk to third-party sellers, and confirmed that it could prove this from an email from the negociant distributing the declassified wines.
However, the ASA found the “same wine” claim to be misleading, noting that top châteaux reserved their best fruit for their flagship wines and made second or third, cheaper, wines from remaining materials that were not marketed as “Grand Vin”. The ASA considered that consumers would understand the claim, “the same wine”, to mean that the advertised wine was identical or materially equivalent to the flagship wines. The advertiser could not provide adequate evidence to show that the wine being sold was compositionally or qualitatively equivalent to any specific Grand Vin.
Savings claim
The second issue concerned an email with the subject “80% off wine is waiting” and text in the body of the email stating, “We buy direct from the producers, getting you trade prices on wine. Our members save an average of £500 per year on wine.” The complainant challenged whether the price claim was misleading and could be substantiated.
In response, Winedrops supplied its product list with discount benchmarks and said that its app showed each product’s RRP (recommended retail price) and web average, with clickable source information.
However, the ASA found that the savings claim in the email’s subject line was misleading, as it was ambiguous, largely unqualified and did not state the comparison basis (it was unclear whether, for example, the seller was referring to a saving against the prices at which it usually sold the products or against market prices). A linked video at the bottom of the ad also claimed that the products were “up to 80% cheaper than what you can find in the shops”, further contributing to the ambiguity.
The ASA considered that consumers would likely understand the claims to mean that Winedrops customers could save 80% against general market prices. It noted that additional information was provided on the Winedrops app, but this information was not included in the email, which was not limited by space and, in any event, did not specifically refer to RRPs or mention web average prices. Although the advertiser provided its discount percentages data to the ASA, it did not demonstrate that its prices represented genuine savings, including against general market prices.
Price claim and time limited promotion
Another email included the subject “EMERGENCY RESTOCK – Last chance to get WHISPERING ANGEL”, with the text in the body of the email displaying a retail benchmark price of £26.64 in grey and a £5 price in green with “Save 81%”. The complainant challenged whether the price claim for Whispering Angel was misleading, as the website stated that it was £13.
In response, Winedrops said that the complainant had received a time‑limited £5 offer for Whispering Angel, which had likely expired by the time the complainant clicked on the link. Winedrops said that the promotion was routinely available and provided the ASA with order records showing that price.
Nevertheless, the ASA found that the £5 price claim was misleading because consumers would likely interpret the price as the current price and that it represented a genuine saving against the Winesaver’s “retail benchmark”. While consumers would understand the “EMERGENCY RESTOCK” claim to be a time limited promotion, the ad did not make clear that the promotional window was only 48 hours.
Why this matters: This decision underlines that advertisers must adequately substantiate product‑equivalence claims (“the same wine”) and always consider how such claims are likely to be interpreted and understood. Savings claims must state the basis of the comparison and be supported by verifiable data demonstrating genuine, representative savings. Time‑limited promotions require clear disclosure of the promotion window or else they run the risk of rushing consumers’ decision-making process and prompting decisions based on misleading urgency claims.
