Background
Summary of Council decision:
Three issues were investigated, all of which were Upheld.
Ad description
Claims on the website www.anyiphoneimei.com, promoting unlocking services for mobile phones, stated "UNLOCK YOUR IPHONE ... iPhone 3G, iPhone 3GS, iPhone 4, iPhone 4S, iPhone 5, iPhone 5S, iPhone 5C - UNLOCK YOU [sic] PHONE NOW! ... AnyiPhoneIMEI is Authorised by Apple & iTunes Official iPhone Unlock". Towards the bottom of the page, text under the heading "Money Back Guarantee 100%" stated "Any iPhone IMEI, We have so much confidence in our Software to Unlock iPhone ... that we are offering a full money back guarantee. If you are dissatisfied with our product in any way we will happily refund your purchase, no questions asked ...".
Issue
The complainant challenged whether the following claims were misleading and could be substantiated:
1. the claims to offer a service for unlocking iPhones, because, having purchased the service, he was not able to unlock his iPhone;
2. "AnyiPhoneIMEI is Authorised by Apple & iTunes Official iPhone Unlock", because he had been informed by Apple that they had not authorised the company; and
3. "Money Back Guarantee 100% .... we are offering a full money back guarantee. If you are dissatisfied with our product in any way we will happily refund your purchase, no questions asked", because he had not been able to secure a refund.
Response
AnyiPhoneIMEI Ltd did not respond to the ASA's enquiries.
Assessment
1., 2. & 3. Upheld
The ASA was concerned by AnyiPhoneIMEI Ltd's lack of substantive response and apparent disregard for the Code, which was a breach of CAP Code 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 provide a substantive response to our enquiries and told them to do so in future.
In the absence of documentary evidence, we considered that AnyiPhoneIMEI Ltd had not substantiated their objective claims to offer a service for unlocking the listed models of iPhone, to be "authorised by" Apple or iTunes, or to operate a money-back guarantee system for dissatisfied customers. We therefore concluded that those claims were misleading and in breach of the Code.
The claims 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), 3.45 3.45 Marketers must hold documentary evidence that a testimonial or endorsement used in a marketing communication is genuine, unless it is obviously fictitious, and hold contact details for the person who, or organisation that, gives it. (Endorsements and testimonials), 3.55 3.55 Marketers must promptly refund consumers who make valid claims under an advertised money-back guarantee. (Guarantees and after-sales service) and 9.5.2 (Distance selling).
Action
The claims must not appear again in their current form. We referred the matter to CAP's Compliance team.
