ASA Adjudication on gumtree.com Ltd
gumtree.com Ltd
9th Floor
107 Cheapside
London
EC2V 6DN
Date:
30 May 2012
Media:
Internet (sales promotion)
Sector:
Retail
Number of complaints:
2
Complaint Ref:
A12-191156
Background
Summary of Council decision:
Four issues were investigated, all of which were Upheld.
Ad
Four "Daily Deal" promotions, published on www.gumtreedeals.com:
a. An ad for a torch-light pack stated "£25 for RAC Family Torch Light Pack - Multi-Torch Package with First Aid Kit from Car Audio Centre (was £179.99*)". Small print stated "*Vendor's normal price ...".
b. An ad for a child's bowl stated "£5.95 for Unique and Innovative Non-Spill Gravity Bowl for Kids from AutoBin (was £29.95*)".
c. An ad for a kitchen utensil stated "Take the Stress Out of Cooking with the 3-Speed Auto Stirrer for £9.99 from Auto Bin (was £29.95*)". Small print stated "*Vendor's normal price ...".
d. An ad for telescope and microscope kit stated "Telescope and Microscope Kit Modal Vivitar TELMIC-20 for £39.99 from Sonic UK (was £79.99*)". Small print stated "*Vendor's normal price ...".
Issue
One complainant challenged whether the normal retail prices in
1. ad (a),
2. ad (b), and
3. ad (c)
were genuine.
4. One complainant challenged whether the normal retail price in ad (d) was genuine.
CAP Code (Edition 12)
Response
Gumtree.com Ltd (Gumtree) said they required retailers to sign an agreement before their products were included in a Daily Deal. They said within that agreement the retailer agreed that none of the information provided would be misleading or inaccurate and that Gumtree would be reliant on the information provided by the retailer. They said each Daily Deal was sent to the retailer 72 hours before publication so it could be checked to ensure it was a true and honest representation of the deal being offered. They said that in addition, they took screen shots of the pricing information on retailer's websites in relation to every Daily Deal.
1. Gumtree provided a screenshot of Car Audio Centre's website which displayed the price of the product as "£109.99 was £179.99". They did not state on what date the screenshot was taken. They said the original price of the product was clearly stated and therefore the price in the ad was not misleading.
2. Gumtree provided a screenshot of the product as displayed on AutoBin's website, taken on 12 April 2012. The product price was listed as "Was £29.95 Now £29.95 [sic]". They said that demonstrated the product was normally sold at that price on the retailer's website. They believed the price in the ad was not, therefore, misleading.
3. Gumtree provided a screenshot of the product as displayed on AutoBin's website, taken on 12 April 2012. The product price was listed as "Was £29.95 Now £29.95 [sic]". They said that demonstrated the product was normally sold at that price on the retailer's website. They believed the price in the ad was not, therefore, misleading.
4. Gumtree provided a screenshot of the product as displayed on Sonic (UK) Ltd's website, taken on 12 April 2012. The product price was listed as £79.99. They said that demonstrated the product was normally sold at that price on the retailer's website. They believed the price in the ad was not, therefore, misleading.
Assessment
1., 2., 3. & 4. Upheld
The ASA considered that consumers would understand the "was" prices and text stating "*Vendor's normal price ..." to mean that the products were generally sold to consumers by the retailers at the "was" prices quoted in Gumtree's Daily Deal offers. We understood, however, that Sonic (UK) Ltd, the retailer of the product in ad (d), did not sell products directly to consumers, but through distributors. We considered that, in order to substantiate such price claims, we would need to see documentary evidence, such as receipts or sales records, that the products were generally sold at the quoted "was" prices. We considered that screenshots of the product listings on the retailer's websites, taken after the Daily Deal offers had appeared on Gumtree's website in February 2012, did not constitute such evidence. Because we had not seen evidence to substantiate the "was" prices were genuine, we concluded the ads were misleading.
The ads breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1 (Misleading advertising), 3.7 (Substantiation), 3.17 (Prices) and 3.40 (Price Comparisons).
Action
The ads must not appear again in their current form. We told Gumtree they must hold documentary evidence to substantiate that the "was" prices quoted in their offers were the prices at which the products were generally sold to consumers by the retailers referred to in the ad.
