Ad description
Claims on a "Daily Deal" promotion for eye drops, on gumtreedeals.com, stated "£7 for Eye Brightening Collyre Bleu Eye Drops from JD Harris (was £24.99*)". The footnote stated "*Vendor's normal price".
Issue
The complainant challenged whether the claim "was £24.99" exaggerated the saving, because they understood that that was not the price at which the product was generally sold.
Response
Gumtree said they believed the deal was fully compliant with the Code, because the normal retail price stated in the ad was correct. They submitted a screenshot from the JD Harris website, which stated the RRP of the eye drops was £24.99 and that they were currently selling the product for £19.95. They provided a screenshot of the manufacturer's website, which stated the product was $39.95 but was being sold for $35. They also submitted a screenshot showing the product for sale on eBay for £31.02 and upwards, which they said were above the RRP, and therefore demonstrated that was at least the price at which the product was generally sold. Gumtree said they had asked JD Harris to supply evidence relating to the recommended retail price of £24.99 for the eye drops but that they were unable to provide any.
Assessment
Upheld
The ASA noted the ad stated that the "vendor's normal price" of the eye drops was £24.99, and considered consumers would therefore expect that the product was generally sold at that price. We noted the JD Harris' website sold the product for £19.95. In the absence of any evidence that demonstrated that Eye Brightening Collyre Bleu Eye Drops were generally sold at £24.99, we considered the claim had not been substantiated and concluded that it was misleading.
The ad breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1 3.1 Marketing communications must not materially mislead or be likely to do so. (Misleading advertising), 3.7 3.7 Before distributing or submitting a marketing communication for publication, marketers must hold documentary evidence to prove claims that consumers are likely to regard as objective and that are capable of objective substantiation. The ASA may regard claims as misleading in the absence of adequate substantiation. (Substantiation), 3.11 3.11 Marketing communications must not mislead consumers by exaggerating the capability or performance of a product. (Exaggeration), 3.17 3.17 Price statements must not mislead by omission, undue emphasis or distortion. They must relate to the product featured in the marketing communication. (Prices) and 3.40 3.40 Price comparisons must not mislead by falsely claiming a price advantage. Comparisons with a recommended retail prices (RRPs) are likely to mislead if the RRP differs significantly from the price at which the product or service is generally sold. (Price comparisons).
Action
The ad must not appear again in its current form. We told Gumtree to ensure statements of value were an accurate representation of the price at which the product was generally sold and that they held evidence to substantiate future claims.
