Background
Summary of Council decision:
Two issues were investigated, both were Upheld.
Ad description
Claims on the website www.pandoracharmsuktop.co.uk, which featured the Pandora logo, included "Create Your Own Style by Choosing Authentic Pandora Jewellery", "Our store is an independently owned, authorized leading retailer of Pandora jewellery" and "Please note that we cannot process any products that are returned without our prior knowledge. If you wish to return any or all parts of your order, you will need to contact customer service firstly. For replacement and refund 1. Quality Issues: We will be responsible for an exchange or refund if there are any product quality problems within 7 days of the customers receiving the item. Customers may need to send us the pictures of the goods they received beforehand and also send the product back to us, and after confirming that the product has not been damaged on purpose, we will exchange the product or offer a refund".
Issue
The complainant challenged whether:
1. the claims "Authentic Pandora Jewellery" and "Our store is an … authorized leading retailer of Pandora jewellery" were misleading and could be substantiated, because she believed the product she received, which broke within a few hours of wearing, was of poor quality and not genuine; and
2. the claim that a refund would be available if there were quality issues was misleading, because she attempted to contact the advertiser to request a refund but was unable to do so.
Response
1. & 2. Pandoracharmsuktop.co.uk did not respond to our enquiries.
Assessment
1. & 2. Upheld
The ASA was concerned by pandoracharmsuktop.co.uk's lack of response and apparent disregard for the Code, which was a breach of CAP Code (Edition 12) rule 1.7 1.7 Any unreasonable delay in responding to the ASA's enquiries will normally be considered a breach of the Code. (Unreasonable delay). We reminded them of their responsibility to respond promptly to our enquiries and told them to do so in future.
We considered the claims "Authentic Pandora Jewellery" and "Our store is an … authorized leading retailer of Pandora jewellery" were likely to be understood by consumers to mean that pandoracharmsuktop.co.uk sold genuine Pandora branded jewellery but noted we had not seen any evidence of that. We also noted we had not seen any evidence that refunds were given to consumers in the event of quality issues and understood that the form that was provided to contact the advertiser via their website did not allow any requests to be submitted. In the absence of evidence to support the authenticity claims, and those about refunds, we concluded that they breached the Code.
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) and 3.41 3.41 Marketing communications must not mislead the consumer about who manufactures the product. and 3.43 3.43 Marketing communications must not take unfair advantage of the reputation of a competitor's trade mark, trade name or other distinguishing mark or of the designation of origin of a competing product. (Imitation and denigration).
Action
The ad must not appear again in its current form. We told pandoracharmsuktop.co.uk to ensure they did not claim their products were authentic, or that they offered refunds, in future in the absence of adequate substantiation. We referred the matter to CAP's Compliance team.
