ASA Ruling on Parcel2Go
Parcel2Go claims found misleading. The ASA has found that a combination of Parcel2Go claims was in breach of the CAP code because they were unclear and misleading. Stefania Grosso reports.
Parcel2Go claims found misleading. The ASA has found that a combination of Parcel2Go claims was in breach of the CAP code because they were unclear and misleading. Stefania Grosso reports.
The French Courts ruled that an advertisement, despite not being misleading, was nonetheless punishable for basing its comparative advertising campaign solely on disparaging comments. Chloe Dumoulin-Richet reports.
The ASA clears the online estate agent’s “You could save thousands” claim, but not their “£4,158 average customer saving”. Ben Poole investigates why.
Was Dr Oetker’s survey evidence adequate to substantiate a “9 out of 10 agree” claim for its pizza? Daisy Jones reports.
Ensuring comparative claims in ads are verifiable is vital. CAP has published new guidance on the what, when and how of verifiability in this context. For example, how should supporting evidence be referenced? Jude King reports.
Argos claimed a hairstraightener “was £64.99 [now] £32.49 half price”. Victoria Plum offered a basin unit for “£199 was £299 you save £100.” The ASA ignored the official Pricing Practices Guide when adjudicating on both claims. Chloe Dumoulin-Richet reports.
In the District Court of The Hague, history has been made in a comparative advertising case involving optical measuring instrument competitors i-Optics and Oculus. Kevin vant Klooster of Osborne Clarke Amsterdam reports.
Holiday booking site Lastminute.com tried to emphasise the savings on their website by striking out a standard hotel room price in favour of a lower price. However, was the basis of comparison accurate and fair? Thomas Spanyol reports.
Gama Healthcare sued competitor Pal International over allegedly confusing similarities between the design of Pal’s “Medipal” wet wipe packs and Gama’s own Clinell wipe packs. Vicki Hawkins compares the packs and reports on Gama’s attempt to widen its claims.
Join the first choice for single travellers,” said a flyer and brochure for holiday company Solitair. Small print said the claim was “for trade mark purposes” and “did not imply to any sales or revenue.” What did it all mean? Fiona Schneider reports on the ensuing ASA case.