Note: This advice is given by the CAP Executive about non-broadcast advertising. It does not constitute legal advice. It does not bind CAP, CAP advisory panels or the Advertising Standards Authority.
Also known as: small print, footnotes, qualifying information, misleading ads
Further updates to this AdviceOnline library entry, and other relevant entries, will follow in due course to reflect any relevant CAP Code changes due to the introduction of the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024. Further information can be found here.
To help marketers understand when qualifications are likely to be required, and the level of clarification needed, CAP has issued Advertising Guidance on the use of qualifications in ads. The guidance below should be read in conjunction with this Advertising Guidance.
As per rule 3.1, marketing communications must not materially mislead or be likely to do so. The Advertising Guidance explains that the ASA frequently rule on the use of qualifications where marketers have failed to meet the Code’s requirements that qualifying information should:
- be included where it is material to the consumer’s understanding of the primary claim and/or the marketing communication as a whole;
- not contradict the primary claim being qualified to the extent that consumers are likely to be misled; and
- be presented clearly with an appropriate level of prominence.
This overview broadly mirrors the content of rules 3.3, 3.9 and 3.10 of the CAP Code.
Qualify claims where necessary
Present qualifications clearly and with sufficient prominence
Qualify claims where necessary
Often, qualifications are necessary to ensure that ads do not mislead. They can provide additional pieces of information that ensure consumers properly understand the headline or primary claims being made and can make an informed decision in relation to the product.
Rule 3.3 makes clear that ads must not mislead by omitting material information, or by presenting it in an unclear, unintelligible, ambiguous or untimely manner. Material information is defined as information that the consumer needs to make informed decisions in relation to a product. Marketing communications which omit material information, making it difficult for consumers to make informed decisions about a marketer’s product or service, are likely to breach rule 3.3.
As per rule 3.3, 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.
Any limitations which affect how or when a product or service can be used are likely to be considered material information (Eurostar International Ltd, 06 November 2024). Material information should be included in the initial advertising, and it is unlikely to be sufficiently clear if set out in the full terms and conditions, or in information separate to the initial advertising. The ASA upheld a complaint about an ad for a NOW TV membership plan, because the relevant webpages did not clearly set out that the plans included ads, and information about the memberships offering ad-free viewing was either two clicks away from the main body text, or one click away at the bottom of a long webpage (Sky UK Ltd t/a NOW, 31 July 2024).
Marketing communications should also make clear any significant limitation to an advertised guarantee (rule 3.54). The ASA upheld a complaint about an ad for Alton Towers Theme Park which included information about a “Rainy Day Guarantee”, as the ad failed to make clear that the guarantee could only be invoked after one hour of continuous rain, as declared by the Park Duty Manager on that day. This was deemed to be a significant limitation that should have been made clear. Details about how the guarantee was declared, and how long rides needed to be out of operation for, were also deemed to be material to a consumer’s understanding of the guarantee (Merlin Attractions Operations Ltd t/a Alton Towers Resort, 29 November 2023). See Plumbforce Direct Ltd, 30 October 2019 and Guarantees and warranties for further information.
Additional requirements apply to promotional offers. For guidance on the information which should be included when running promotions, see Promotional marketing: terms and conditions and significant conditions.
Qualify, don't contradict
Rule 3.9 states that marketing communications must state significant limitations and qualifications. Qualifications may be used to clarify claims, but they must not contradict those claims to the extent that consumers are likely to be misled.
By way of example, in 2024 the ASA ruled against an ad on a job vacancy website with the headline “Trainee Health & Safety Advisor”. Text at the bottom of the listing stated “Please note that this is a training course and fees apply”. The ASA decided that the text in the body of the ad contradicted rather than qualified the headline claim and accompanying initial text, contrary to rule 3.9 (IT Career Change Ltd, 18 December 2024). The qualification “actor portrayal” was deemed to contradict claims from an individual in a Tik Tok ad discussing the merits of Better Me Health Coaching. The impression consumers would get from the ad was that the individual had achieved a significant increase in muscularity after completing the 28-day programme, which was not the case (BetterMe Ltd t/a Better Me, 19 June 2024).
The ASA also decided that the terms of a promotion contradicted a headline claim, as despite the headline claim stating that any order over £200 would receive a 20% discount when a discount code was used, this was not the case when a separate discount code had already been applied (Screen with Envy Ltd, 28 September 2022). See also Home Instead Ltd, 17 August 2022, Ellanoir Luxury 2021, 03 November 2021, PrettyLittleThing.com, 04 October 2017 and In The Style, Fashion, 06 January 2021.
In 2025, the ASA did not uphold a complaint about a comparison between Nectar points and Tesco Clubcard points. One of the factors that led to this decision was the fact the qualifying text that linked to a headline claim via an asterisk clarified, rather than contradicted, the headline claim (Tesco Stores Ltd t/a Tesco, 12 February 2025).
Present qualifications clearly and with sufficient prominence
Rule 3.10 states that qualifications must be presented clearly. In general, where information is material to a consumer’s understanding of the product or service on offer, it should be presented in a way which can be easily seen and read by the average consumer.
Section 5 of the Guidance on the use of qualifications in ads includes a non-exhaustive list of some of the factors to consider when assessing whether a qualification is sufficiently clear and prominent. These factors include the size of the qualifications, their positioning in the ad, the significance of the information, the content and layout of the rest of the ad, the nature of the medium, and the prominence of the primary claim.
The guidance also provides a ‘qualifying ladder’ to help marketers determine whether information should be in the headline, sub-heading, body copy, or whether it is sufficient to include these in footnotes. Marketers should select an appropriate level of prominence relative to the position of their primary claim. The main determinate of this is the importance of the information contained in the qualification to consumers’ understanding of the primary claim; the more important the qualifier, the greater prominence is likely to be necessary (i.e. the fewer steps there should be in the qualification ladder between the primary claim and qualifying information).
Using of asterisks and footnotes
Sections 7 and 8 of the Advertising Guidance relate specifically to the use of asterisks and footnotes. See also Small print and footnotes for further information.
Minor qualifications, especially those that are clearly linked to the claim they qualify (for example, with an asterisk) are likely to be acceptable in footnotes, but significant qualifications may not be, especially if they are included in long footnotes.
For example, in 2024 the William Hill website displayed the claim “Get £60 from a £10 Bet” and a “Join Here” button with the text “payment methods…restrictions apply. Full T&Cs apply” underneath it. The full terms were set out in small print further down the page, and stated that the promotion was unavailable where the initial funds were paid in via Apple Pay. The ASA ruled that the initial text did not make sufficiently clear that Apple Pay was excluded from the promotion. The initial text was not linked to the relevant term. Consumers needed to read numerous terms to understand the restriction. The ASA therefore decided the significant condition was insufficiently prominent (WHG (International) Ltd t/a William Hill Online, 31 July 2024). See also Telefonica UK Ltd, 08 July 2020.
Including qualifications at the end of an email or webpage, only viewable by scrolling down, is unlikely to be sufficient.
For instance, the ASA considered the claim “from £47 pp one way + car” on a webpage advertising a ferry crossing from Newcastle to Amsterdam. Qualifying text explaining that this type of one-way ticket was only available when four places were booked in a four-person cabin was included at the bottom of the page, but consumers would only have been aware of this had they scrolled down the page, which they were not required to do to book. The qualifying information was deemed to be insufficiently prominent (DFDS Seaways Ltd t/a DFDS, dfdsseaways.co.uk, 13 September 2023). See also High Seat Life Ltd t/a HSL, 12 February 2025.
Footnotes should be prominent and clearly linked to the claim they qualify
By way of example, in 2022 the ASA considered a series of Sky ads (website and via email) in which Sky had defined “major provider” in a specific way. Because the definition required explaining, the ASA considered that a qualification should have been suitably prominent. The qualification in the webpage was in a drop-down menu. It was located at the bottom of the email ad. There was also no asterisk linking the claim to the term on the webpage, and whilst there was an asterisk next to the claim in the email, there was no corresponding asterisk next to the term. The footnotes were lengthy in both instances, and only a limited amount related to disputed claims. On that basis, the ads were deemed to be misleading (Sky UK Ltd, 10 August 2022).
Similarly, the ASA ruled against an ad which included a “T&Cs apply” message next to a Christmas delivery claim on a webpage, but did not include an asterisk showing where those T&Cs could be viewed (i.e. on a separate webpage) (High Seat Life t/a HSL, 12 February 2025). See also Official iPhone Unlock Ltd, 16 May 2018.
Vertical qualifications are less likely to be acceptable as they are more difficult to read than horizontal ones. Whilst there is no specific font or size that marketers should use for small-print, qualifications included in small-print should not be presented in a text size, font, or colour which makes them difficult to read.
Section 9 of the Advertising Guidance makes clear that marketers should also take media characteristics into account; printed ads that consumers handle directly generally allows a greater opportunity for consumers to read qualifications, for instance, those contained in a footnote. That is less likely to be the case for media or ad types viewed from a distance (i.e. posters).
Marketers should also note that BCAP has produced separate guidance on the requirements for the use of superimposed text in TV advertising.
See Misleading advertising and Small print and footnotes for further information.