1. Upheld

The ASA noted Optimax had amended the promotions. We also noted, however, we had not seen any evidence to demonstrate that the Optical Express prices, and related savings claims, in the ad were representative of the prices charged by Optical Express. Because the price comparisons and related savings claims had not been substantiated, we concluded that they were misleading.

On this point, the ads breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1 (Misleading advertising), 3.7 (Substantiation), 3.17 (Prices), 3.33 (Comparisons with identifiable competitors).

2. Not upheld

We noted the promotions offered prices of both £1,995 and £2,395 for IntraLase Wavefront LASIK treatment with Optimax. We noted the web pages either included an enquiry form labelled “Please fill in this form to qualify for this offer” or stated “This special offer is available to Telephone Callers only”, or “This offer is available to Telephone Callers and Online Bookings only”, and also provided a code for consumers to quote. We considered that made clear the stated prices were not the prices that were generally charged but were instead promotional prices that were available only using the relevant booking method.

We noted the information from Optimax’s database and payment records, which demonstrated that consumers had taken up IntraLase Wavefront LASIK at the prices of £1,995 and £2,395 stated. Because the ads made clear the prices stated were promotional rates only, and we had seen evidence that consumers had been treated for the advertised rates, we concluded that the price claims were not misleading.

On this point, we investigated the ads under CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1 (Misleading advertising), 3.7 (Substantiation) and 3.17 (Prices) but did not find them in breach.