ASA Adjudication on Quorn Professional Advisory Service

Ad

A mailing for a betting tipster service was headlined "THE AMAZING GOOD LIFE SYSTEM". Text stated " ... 75% CONSISTENT WINNING SUCCESS HUNDREDS OF EXCITING BIG WINNERS £1500 WEEKLY PROFIT TO £50 STAKES ... it's WON MORE OFTEN THAT [sic] NOT, PREDICTED COUNTLESS BIG PRICED WINNERS UP TO 25-1 AND GENERATED CONSTANT CASH PROFITS! ... LAST - 12 MONTHS A FABULOUS YEAR FOR ALL GOOD LIFE BUYERS! 225 WINNERS WERE SUCCESSFULLY SELECTED 75% OVERALL WINNING SUCCESS RATE OVER £80,000 TOTAL PROFIT TO £50 STAKES ... 28-DAY MONEY BACK GUARANTEE TO EACH PURCHASER How's that for total peace of mind cover. If by any chance results unexpectedly turn sour - you're protected. Give the system no more than 28 days to display its uncanny winning talents ...".

Issue

The complainant, who signed up to the system but, when he requested his money back because he believed the results were unsatisfactory, was told the money-back guarantee was not applicable because the system worked, challenged whether:

1. the 28 day money-back guarantee was genuine and

2. the profit claims could be substantiated.

CAP Code (Edition 11)

Response

1. Quorn Professional Advisory Service (Quorn) maintained that the complainant had not received his money back because he had contacted them after the 28-day eligibility period. They argued that they had received no written correspondence from the complainant but had received a telephone call from him after the 28 days had elapsed. They asserted that no other customers had ever requested their money back; they sent no evidence to show the guarantee was genuine.

2. Quorn did not comment on the profit claims and did not send the ASA any evidence to support the claims.

Assessment

1. Upheld

The ASA noted the complainant had received a copy of Quorns system on 14 October 2006 and had written to Quorn requesting his money back on 29 October 2006. We also noted the complainant had received a written response from Quorn by 3 November, within 28 days of receiving the system, stating that the system worked. We considered that, because we had not seen evidence to show that Quorns "28 day money back guarantee" was genuine, the ad was misleading.

On this point, the ad breached CAP Code clauses 3.1 (Substantiation), 7.1 (Truthfulness), 17.1 and 17.3 (Guarantees).

2. Upheld

We considered that, because we had not seen evidence to support any of the challenged profit claims, the ad was misleading.

On this point, the ad breached CAP Code clauses 3.1 (Substantiation), 7.1 (Truthfulness).

Action

We told Quorn not to use the profit claims again without substantiating evidence, which should be sent to us on request, and not to refer to the money-back guarantee again unless they could prove it was genuine. We advised them to seek advice from the CAP Copy Advice team before advertising in future.

Adjudication of the ASA Council (Non-broadcast)