Background
Summary of Council decision:
Three issues were investigated, all of which were Upheld.
Ad description
A website for Elite Phones and Computers Ltd, www.mobilephonerepairing.co.uk, seen on 13 August 2015, included the claims “Services … We are the biggest gadget repairing company in Uk[sic]. We are the biggest gadget repairing company in Uk[sic] covering all cities and brands”, “Warranty Most affordable and all services. Most affordable and all services come with a 12 month warranty including parts”, and “24/7 Support Our support system is unmatched. Our support system is unmatched with accurate statues[sic] updates about your device”.
Issue
EPAC Victims Support challenged whether the following claims were misleading and could be substantiated:
1. “We are the biggest gadget repairing company in Uk[sic]” and “We are the biggest gadget repairing company in Uk[sic] covering all cities and brands”;
2. “… all services come with a 12 month warranty including parts”; and
3. “Our support system is unmatched” and “Our support system is unmatched with accurate statues[sic] updates about your device”.
Response
Elite Phones and Computers Ltd did not respond to the ASA’s enquiries.
Assessment
The ASA was concerned by Elite Phones and Computers’ lack of response and apparent disregard for the Code, which was a breach of CAP Code (Edition 12) rule 1.7 (Unreasonable delay). We reminded them of their responsibility to respond promptly to our enquiries and we told them to do so in future.
1. & 3. Upheld
We considered the claims that Elite Phones and Computers was “the biggest gadget repairing company in the Uk[sic]” and “the biggest gadget repairing company in the Uk[sic] covering all cities and brands” would be understood by consumers to be comparative claims that the advertiser had a larger market share of the ‘gadget’ repair sector in the UK than any of their competitors, and that they were the company with the largest market share which covered all cities and repaired all brands of gadgets.
We further considered consumers would understand the claims that the advertiser’s “support system was unmatched” and that it was “unmatched with accurate [status] updates about your device” to be comparative claims, comparing Elite Phone and Computers’ support system with that of its competitors, and which implied that none of their competitors provided customers with updates about the status of the repairs to their device.
We considered such comparative claims must be supported by documentary evidence comparing the market share and services provided by all companies offering gadget repair in the UK, but noted that Elite Phones and Computers had not provided any evidence in support of their claims. In the absence of such evidence, we concluded the claims had not been substantiated and were misleading.
On those points, 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 3.33 3.33 Marketing communications that include a comparison with an identifiable competitor must not mislead, or be likely to mislead, the consumer about either the advertised product or the competing product. (Comparisons with Identifiable Competitors).
2. Upheld
We considered consumers would understand the claim “… all services come with a 12 month warranty including parts” to mean that all repairs carried out by the advertiser, including parts provided as part of the repair, were guaranteed by the advertiser for 12 months following the repair. We considered that to substantiate the claim we would need to see documentary evidence which demonstrated that Elite Phone and Computers had honoured that guarantee. In the absence of such evidence, we concluded the claim had not been substantiated and was misleading.
On that point, 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) 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).
Action
The ad must not appear again in its current form. We told Elite Phone and Computers Ltd not to make claims, comparative or otherwise, for which they did not hold documentary evidence and which were likely to mislead. We referred the matter to CAP's Compliance team.
