ASA Adjudication on Andrew Lowell

Ad

An ad on a social networking site, for part-time work, was headlined “£85/Hr Part-Time Job”. Text below stated “This online job has earned me £15000 in 3 months. I’ll show you how to get started. No experience needed”.

Issue

1. The complainant, who believed the ad implied anyone who participated in the scheme could earn £15,000 in three months, challenged whether the claim in the ad was misleading and could be substantiated.

2. The ASA challenged whether the ad was for a pyramid promotional scheme and therefore whether it should have been advertised at all.

CAP Code (Edition 11)

Response

1. & 2. Andrew Lowell did not respond to the ASA's enquiries.

Assessment

1. & 2. Upheld

The ASA was concerned by Andrew Lowell's lack of response and apparent disregard for the Code, which was a breach of CAP Code clause 2.6 (Non-response).  We reminded them of their obligations under the Code and told them to respond promptly in future.

Andrew Lowell did not provide evidence to demonstrate that respondents to the ad could routinely earn the amount stated or that the ad was not for a pyramid scheme where consumers paid for the opportunity to receive compensation that was derived primarily from the introduction of others into the scheme.

We noted the website linked to the ad stated " ... you can make a lot of money by participating in online surveys and by running searches in search engines ... Companies pay you because you provide them with valuable information that can be used to improve their products and/or services ... It cost $1.95 USD (£1.40) shipping fee ... As long as you put a couple of hours work in, you will be making anywhere from £3000 - £5000 a month ... ".        

We noted respondents to the scheme were required to pay for the shipping of information that would equip them to find " ... high paying surveys and searches ... ".  We also noted, however, that other websites related to the same system stated that respondents would be required to post links on the Internet; we considered it was likely that respondents would be expected to place those links at their own expense.  We also considered it was likely that consumers were paying their £1.40 fee for the opportunity to receive compensation that was derived primarily from the introduction of other consumers into the scheme.  Although text in the ad implied the scheme on offer involved homeworking, we were concerned that the website strongly suggested the ad was for a pyramid scheme, the marketing of which was prohibited under Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations (CPRs) and the CAP Code.  In the absence of any evidence from Andrew Lowell to the contrary, we concluded that the ad was very likely to be for a pyramid scheme and, if that was the case, it should not have been advertised at all.

The ad breached CAP Code clauses 2.6 (Non-response), 3.1 (Substantiation), 6.1 (Honesty), 7.1 (Truthfulness) and 52.8 (Employment and business opportunities).

Action

The ad must not appear again in its current form.  We asked CAP to inform their media members of the problem with Andrew Lowell.

Adjudication of the ASA Council (Non-broadcast)