Background

Summary of Council decision:

Two issues were investigated, of which one was Upheld and one Not upheld.

Ad description

A website, www.iphonespecialist.co.uk, promoted an iDevice repair centre. In a section of the home page entitled "eKomi Feedback" text stated "Customer Rating 4.9/5" and "GUARANTEED real customer feedback". It also featured an extract from a testimonial that stated "First class easy to use service at a fraction of the cost with Apple".

Issue

The complainant, who had submitted a negative review which had not been published, challenged whether the claims:

1. "Customer Rating 4.9/5"; and

2. "GUARANTEED real customer feedback";

were misleading and could be substantiated.

Response

1. & 2. FreeFusion Ltd (FreeFusion) explained that their user reviews were managed by eKomi ‒ an independent third party. They stated that once a customer had completed a transaction they would receive an e-mail from eKomi inviting them to review the service they had received. If the review was critical FreeFusion would then be given the opportunity to start a mediation process with the customer, or to simply agree the review. During the mediation process both parties would enter into a dialogue and attempt to resolve any concerns and, after a particular length of time, if an amicable solution had not been reached, one of eKomi's independent advisors would decide whether the original review was fair or not. FreeFusion also provided links which showed that critical and neutral reviews were published on their site. They also highlighted that unlike many of their competitors, the fact they used a third party to assess and manage their reviews meant that consumers could be confident that the reviews were written only by genuine customers.

Assessment

The ASA understood that the complainant had submitted a negative review that had not been published on FreeFusion's site, and that he was currently engaged in the mediation process with FreeFusion. We noted that FreeFusion had recruited eKomi, an independent third party, to manage any reviews received from their customers, and that by using an external company they hoped to protect themselves from unwarranted negative feedback. We understood that, after their transactions were completed, eKomi invited all FreeFusion's customers to review the service they had received. If that review was positive, the review was published immediately, but if the review was neutral or negative, FreeFusion were given the opportunity to enter into an arbitration process with the customer to try and resolve the issue. We understood from eKomi's website that if FreeFusion did not choose to enter into the mediation process, after five days, the review would be published, but if they chose mediation, both parties had four weeks to present all the information they considered to be key to the case and respond to each other's concerns, before an eKomi review manager would decide whether the review was fair and therefore whether to publish it or not. We also noted that the customer could close the arbitration process at any point, by removing or amending their review.

1. Upheld

We considered that most consumers reading the claim "Customer Rating 4.9/5" would expect that the reviews were "live", that all feedback, positive or negative, was published on the site immediately, and would not anticipate that any neutral or negative reviews would be subject to an arbitration process prior to publication. We noted, however, that if a consumer submitted a negative or neutral review, it could appear on the site over four weeks after it had initially been submitted. We also considered that a number of consumers might not wish to partake in the arbitration process and engage in a protracted discussion with FreeFusion simply to have their feedback published. We noted that FreeFusion were not able to provide any data regarding the number of neutral or negative reviews they had initially received in the past year, whether in those instances the consumer had engaged with, and completed, the arbitration process, how those cases had been resolved, and how long that process had taken. Therefore, although we acknowledged that FreeFusion had received a number of positive reviews, in the absence of any information regarding the number of negative or neutral reviews initially submitted, and how those cases were resolved, we considered that the customer rating of 4.9/5 had not been substantiated and was in breach of the Code.

On that point, the claim 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).

2. Not upheld

We noted that the ad stated "GUARANTEED real customer feedback". We also noted that if a consumer clicked on the claims they were taken to a web page that listed a number of reviews received, including negative and neutral ones, and from that page consumers could navigate to further information about eKomi and their review management process. Although we had concerns that not all negative or neutral reviews were published, or their publication was delayed, we understood that only consumers who had completed a transaction with FreeFusion were invited to submit a review. We therefore considered that all the published reviews were from genuine customers and reflected their experience of the FreeFusion's service, and concluded that the claim was accurate and not in breach of the Code.

On that point, we investigated the claim under 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), but did not find it in breach.

Action

The ad must not appear again in its current form. We told FreeFusion Ltd to ensure they held evidence to substantiate the claims in their marketing communications in future.

CAP Code (Edition 12)

3.1     3.7    


More on