Ad description
Claims on www.phonerecyclers.co.uk for a Samsung Galaxy S3 stated "Sell My Samsung Galaxy S3 i9300. Select conditions & quantity you wish to sell and recycle for cash. New - You will receive £80.00 cash! Used - We will pay you £71.50 cash!. Non-Working - You will get £10.00 cash!". The FAQs stated "How much can I sell my Samsung Galaxy S3 i9300 for? Phone Recyclers will pay you ... £71.50 for used...".
Issue
The complainant challenged whether the claims "Used [Samsung S3 phones] - we will pay you £71.50 cash!" and "Phone Recyclers will pay you ... £71.50 for used [Samsung S3 phones] ..." were misleading and could be substantiated, because they were offered £36 for their Samsung Galaxy S3, once it had been received by Phone Recyclers.
Response
SA Corporation Ltd trading as phonerecyclers.co.uk said their terms and conditions along with their FAQs provided consumers with help in deciding whether or not to sell their handsets to them. That information stated the price offered for the handset would be dependent on its condition and also gave details of what percentage would be deducted from the initial price quoted on the website based on particular faults or issues found by phonerecyclers.co.uk upon inspection. It also stated that the price quoted on the website for a particular handset was valid only for a week.
phonerecyclers.co.uk provided documentary evidence for three Samsung Galaxy S3 handsets they had recently received. One customer was offered the full offer price, which was £71 at the time, while the remaining two had their offer price reduced because of faults with the handset. Phonerecylers.co.uk said that when offering a lower price to the one shown on the website, they always checked with the customer to see if they still wanted to sell the handset.
phonerecyclers.co.uk said that not every Samsung Galaxy S3 had its offer price revised, which was only the case if they found faults or issues with the handset. They said that 97% of customers accepted their offer and phonerecylcers.co.uk believed they offered top and best prices for that particular handset.
Assessment
Upheld
The ASA noted the price quoted on the website was valid for one week only and that we had seen evidence of one instance where the consumer had been paid the then offer price. We acknowledged they offered consumers the opportunity to decline their offer of a lower price, once phonerecylers.co.uk had inspected the handset.
However, we considered the claims "we will pay you £71.50" and "Phone Recyclers will pay you £71.50" were likely to be interpreted to mean that phonerecylers.co.uk would pay consumers £71.50 for their Samsung Galaxy S3 handset, regardless of its condition. However, deductions could be made to the offer price quoted on the website and the eventual price offered to the consumer could be much lower than the one quoted on the website. We therefore considered the price quoted in the claims was, in fact, a maximum one offered to consumers.
We considered that was important information which consumers should know before taking further steps on the website to sell their handset to phonerecyclers.co.uk. Although we acknowledged it appeared on the website elsewhere, we considered that this information was so significant that phonerecylcers.co.uk should have pre-fixed the quoted price with "up to" to make clear that it was a maximum price. In addition, we considered they should have also included qualifying text which explained the eventual price offered was dependent on the condition of the handset, following their inspection. Because it was not clear that the price was subject to deductions and because we had not seen evidence that all customers received £71.50 for their Samsung Galaxy S3, we considered the claims as they were worded were misleading and had not been substantiated. For those reasons, we concluded the claims breached 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) and 3.9 3.9 Marketing communications must state significant limitations and qualifications. Qualifications may clarify but must not contradict the claims that they qualify. (Qualifications).
Action
The claims must not appear again in their present form. We told SA Corporation Ltd not to imply their prices were guaranteed and to qualify their prices to state that it was a maximum price and that the price was subject to their assessment of the handset.
