Ad description
A web page for an online barcode retailer www.barcode1.co.uk. Text on the page stated "Barcodes that work Worldwide. Our barcodes are accepted in more retail stores than any other barcode seller in the world". A logo displayed on the page stated "TRUST VERIFIED BUYER SAFETY SEAL SCREENED AND APPROVED http://barcode1.co.uk". Below the logo were five stars with text that stated "282 RATINGS".
Issue
The complainant, who understood that the Trust Verified website was owned by the advertiser, challenged whether the use of the “Trust Verified” logo misleadingly implied that the website had been independently verified.
Response
Barcodes Ltd stated that they did not own Trust-Verified and that they were owned by a charitable trust. They asserted that Trust-Verified was an independently owned company by the director of Barcodes and another individual.
Barcodes said that they operated independently from Trust-Verified. They explained that Trust-Verified also collected customer feedback at the time of sale and carried out a follow-up survey a number of weeks after the sale. They stated that the collection of customer feedback was fully automated and cannot be altered, and therefore was accurate and independent.
Barcodes stated that their contact name, street address, phone number and e-mail address had been verified by Trust-Verified. They provided evidence to demonstrate that customer ratings and feedback had been submitted at the time of sale.
Assessment
Not upheld
The ASA acknowledged the complainant's concerns regarding the verification of Barcodes' website, as we considered the reliability of an online retailer to be a factor that consumers might take into account when deciding whether or not to make a purchase online. However, we noted that the ad did not make any claims indicating that the Barcodes' website had been verified by an entirely independent third party nor did the 'Trust-Verified' logo include such a claim.
We noted Barcodes' comments that they did not own Trust-Verified and that the sole director of Barcodes was a director and shareholder of Trust-Verified. Although we acknowledged the connection between the two companies, we noted that the evidence provided by Barcodes demonstrated that their contact details had been verified in accordance with the standards imposed by Trust-Verified. We noted that the time on the customer feedback submission forms were consistent with the time of the Barcodes transaction reports generated by customers after making a purchase. We also noted that the customer details submitted in a number of feedback forms corresponded with the details stated in the transactions reports, suggesting that customer feedback and ratings for Barcodes were collected in the independent manner as Barcodes had asserted.
On this basis, we considered that the evidence provided by Barcodes demonstrated that they were subject to the same verification process and standards as other Trust-Verified members would be subject to and that their customer reviews and ratings were collected in an automated and independent manner. We concluded that the use of the Trust Verified logo in the ad was not misleading.
The ad was investigated under CAP Code (Edition 12) rules
3.1
3.1
Marketing communications must not materially mislead or be likely to do so.
3.3
3.3
Marketing communications must not mislead the consumer by omitting material information. They must not mislead by hiding material information or presenting it in an unclear, unintelligible, ambiguous or untimely manner.
Material information is information that the consumer needs to make informed decisions in relation to a product. Whether the omission or presentation of material information is likely to mislead the consumer depends on the context, the medium and, if the medium of the marketing communication is constrained by time or space, the measures that the marketer takes to make that information available to the consumer by other means.
(Misleading Advertising) and
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 was not found to be in breach.
Action
No further action required.
