1. & 2. Upheld
The ASA noted the headline, in ad (b), referred to a possible price increase and the body copy made repeated references to the price of both Daysoft and competitor lenses and commented that Daysoft's price still represented good value. We also noted ad (a) made repeated references to the fact that consumers could save money by purchasing their products instead of their competitors. In that context, we considered consumers were likely to understand the comparison related to the cheapest similar products.

We understood that Specsavers believed the CIBA Vision Focus Dailies lenses were a cheaper more comparable product than those products used in the comparison in ads (a) and (b). However, we noted PLL believed the Daysoft product was different to the CIBA Vision Focus Dailies lenses, because it was supplied through an easy delivery service, was accompanied by professional support, had unique design related comfort performance, superior handling, greener packaging, a UV inhibitor and was offered in a wider range than the lenses referred to by Specsavers. However, we considered the comfort and handling of the lenses were subjective matters; the green packaging, easy delivery and professional support were irrelevant to a comparison of the lenses and considered consumers would not expect a UV inhibitor to be a standard feature of lenses, but rather an option which they may select. We noted ads (a) and (b) compared the Daysoft lenses with 1-day Acuvue lenses, which were available in a slightly wider power range than the CIBA Vision Focus Dailies lenses, which Specsavers believed were a cheaper more comparable product. However, we noted ad (b) also compared the Daysoft lenses with the CIBA Aqua Comfort Plus lenses, which we understood were offered in the same power range as the CIBA Vision Focus Dailies. Whilst we noted the 1-day Acuvue lenses were available in a slightly broader range of powers than the CIBA Vision Focus Dailies, we considered the CIBA Vision Focus Dailies lenses were broadly similar to the Daysoft lenses and were intended to meet the same needs.

We noted PLL believed that their customer feedback showed that the lenses used in the comparisons were the most appropriate comparable products. Whilst we had not been provided with that evidence, we were concerned that, in and of itself, customer feedback would not be sufficient to demonstrate that the products referred to in the ad were the most appropriate comparable products.

Because Specsavers offered a cheaper more comparable product than the products referred to in the ads, we concluded that the ads were misleading and breached the Code.

On these points, the ads breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1 and 3.3 (Misleading advertising), and 3.33, 3.34 and 3.39 (Comparisons).

3. Upheld
We noted the 'ORDER NOW' page was headed "daysoft replaces other brands for half the price" and that text above the search chart stated "please click your present brand to select your daysoft replacement". In that context, we considered consumers would understand the search chart provided a suitable alternative lens for those currently worn by the consumer.

We noted the search chart recommended Daysoft Silk as a replacement for Acuvue Oasys with Hydraclear Plus (AOHP) and that Specsavers argued that recommendation was unsuitable. We acknowledged PLL’s belief that the daily disposable lenses they offered were a suitable alternative to lenses prescribed for overnight use, such as AOHP, because of their concerns over extended wear.

However, we were concerned that wearers of AOHP lenses, who could wear those lenses for up to seven days/six nights, would be advised by the search chart that Daysoft Silk were a suitable alternative, because we understood that those lenses were not designed for extended wear. On that basis, we concluded that the search chart was likely to mislead and breached the Code.

On this point, the ad breached Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1 and 3.3 (Misleading advertising), 3.7 (Substantiation).