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.
The “NAD,” the USA’s equivalent to the UK’s Advertising Standards Authority, has recently adjudicated on a case where consumer reviews were the basis for Euro-Pro’s contested claim. But did they provide adequate substantiation? Felicity Fisher reports.
