Ad description

An ad for a holiday package, seen on the Sunmaster website www.sunmaster.co.uk, on 4 September 2017, stated “Accommodation Total: £105.00 … Total Holiday Cost: £332.55”.

Issue

The complainant, who was unable to purchase the holiday at the advertised price, challenged whether the price claim was misleading and could be substantiated.

Response

Sunmaster Ltd stated that the prices displayed on the website were achievable, but were displayed on a “prices from” basis, and could be impacted by a number of variables at the time of booking. In order to book a package, a customer would carry out a search based on particular parameters, including price. Once they had selected their preferred option, they were invited to either submit a booking request online or to contact Sunmaster’s sales team by phone; in both cases to allow the company to confirm availability and pricing. They said that the prices displayed on the website were produced by means of XML connections to its suppliers. Sunmaster acted solely as an agent and had no control over availability from any one supplier, nor the price charged by a supplier for the product. Prices were updated by suppliers at regular intervals, but it was not possible for pricing and availability to be completely live. The price could change between the enquiry and the completion of the booking. They said that XML results would show the property as unavailable, or available at an increased price, as soon as suppliers were able to update this information, and in the meantime Sunmaster’s booking process ensured availability was checked as required.

At the point at which the complainant called the sales team to complete the booking, the price of the products chosen by him had increased. This was because the accommodation chosen by him had limited availability from a particular supplier at the point of enquiry. They said their terms and conditions made clear that they always needed to check availability with suppliers before booking was confirmed, and that prices quoted in an initial search result could change. They were confident that no reasonable customer would be misled by the circumstances described and believed that the ad did not breach the Code.

Assessment

Upheld

The ASA considered that consumers would understand the claim “Total Holiday Cost: £332.55” to mean that the holiday was available for that price at the time they viewed the ad. The price was not presented as a “from” price, and there was no indication within the ad that the price was subject to change. We noted that the price was based on individual holiday package elements and requirements that had been selected by the consumer, and that no information was provided to indicate that prices were subject to change prior to the final price being presented. We acknowledged that the website terms and conditions stated “Each supplier will require a short period of time to check to see if your chosen arrangements are still available at the price quoted”. However, there was nothing in the ad to direct the consumer to that information.

The complainant had contacted Sunmaster to complete his booking and was told that the package was no longer available at the price quoted in the ad. We were not provided with any evidence to show that the quoted price was based on a genuine price, or with documentary evidence to show how often Sunmaster updated the prices on their website. We understood that flight and accommodation prices available through third parties were liable to fluctuate and advertisers were unlikely to be able to monitor real-time availability, meaning that flights might not be available at the advertised price by the time consumers attempted to make a purchase. However, we considered that the ad was presented in a way which suggested Sunmaster would be able to supply the holiday package at the price advertised.

The CAP Code required marketers to monitor stocks and stated that the marketer should withdraw or amend marketing communications when a product became unavailable. We considered that if prices were subject to change and had limited availability, they should be described as “from” prices. Ads should include a prominent statement indicating that the prices were subject to change and clarify what steps consumers needed to take to find the most up-to-date price.

Because the ad did not present the price as a “from” price, or make clear that the quoted price was subject to change, and because it did not clearly state when the price was last updated, or make clear how consumers would be able to find the most up-to-date prices, we concluded that it was misleading.

The ad breached CAP Code 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),  3.9 3.9 Marketing communications must state significant limitations and qualifications. Qualifications may clarify but must not contradict the claims that they qualify.  (Qualification),  3.17 3.17 Price statements must not mislead by omission, undue emphasis or distortion. They must relate to the product featured in the marketing communication.  (Prices) and  3.28 3.28 Marketing communications that quote a price for a featured product must state any reasonable grounds the marketer has for believing that it might not be able to supply the advertised (or an equivalent) product at the advertised price within a reasonable period and in reasonable quantities. In particular:  and  3.29 3.29 Marketers must monitor stocks. If a product becomes unavailable, marketers must, whenever possible, withdraw or amend marketing communications that feature that product.  (Availability).

Action

The ad must not appear again in the form complained about. We told Sunmaster Ltd to ensure that they held adequate substantiation to show that their quoted prices were based on genuine prices available to consumers. We also told them to describe prices that were subject to change as “from” and clearly state that these were subject to limited availability if that was the case, and to state when prices were last updated, when those prices were subject to change and to have processes in place to make sure prices were updated frequently.

CAP Code (Edition 12)

3.1     3.17     3.28     3.29     3.7     3.9    


More on