ASA Adjudication on Filta Group Ltd

Ad

Four internet ads, for a franchise opportunity, appeared on franchise websites. Three of the ads included text that stated “A Huge Market with no competition”; the other included text that stated “When you buy into a filtafry business you’re buying into a unique proposition with no competition. That’s very reassuring for people concerned about the risks of going into business … ”.

Issue

Purifry Ltd challenged whether the ads misleadingly suggested FiltaFry's business was unique, because they offered a similar franchise opportunity.

CAP Code (Edition 11)

Response

FiltaFry said they did not accept that Purifry were genuine competition because their company was much smaller than FiltaFry and had been in existence for a much shorter period.  They said they were willing to amend new advertising to state that they had "virtually no competition"; however, the four ads would continue to appear until the campaigns reached the end of their natural life, because they had been set up and paid for.

Assessment

Upheld

The ASA noted that FiltaFry did not consider Purifry to be competition.  However, because Purifry offered a similar franchise opportunity, we considered they were competitors of FiltaFry, albeit on a smaller scale.  We considered the ads implied that FiltaFry had no competition at all and were unique to the marketplace; however, that was not the case.  We concluded that the ads misleadingly implied that FiltaFrys business was unique.

The ads breached CAP Code clauses 3.1 (Substantiation), 7.1 (Truthfulness) and 19.1 (Other comparisons).

Action

The ads must not appear again in their current form.  We told FiltaFry not to imply their business was unique if they could not substantiate that claim.

Adjudication of the ASA Council (Non-broadcast)