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.
Foreword: The Unfair Commercial Practices (UCP) provisions in the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024 (DMCCA) replaced and updated the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 (the CPRs) - the legislation from which the majority of the CAP and BCAP rules on misleading advertising derived. Relevant amendments were made to the CAP Code, which came into force on 7 April 2025. The advice below may be informed by ASA rulings that predate the introduction of the UCPs. Rather than removing such advice, where the underlying principles still align with the updated rules, it has remained included for educational and illustrative purposes. Marketers are advised to also review the resources Amendments to the Advertising Codes following review in response to the DMCCA 2024 and the CAP Code archive.
Often, consumers are required to pay delivery charges when making purchases, particularly when shopping online.
Delivery costs are often considered material information for the purposes of rule 3.3, which defines material information as information needed by the average consumer to take an informed transactional decision.
Therefore, if an advertiser is stating prices in an ad (rule 3.4), or if it would otherwise be misleading to omit any applicable delivery charges (rule 3.3), then the advertiser must state any delivery charges which apply.
Omitting, hiding, or presenting material information in an unclear, unintelligible, ambiguous, or untimely manner is a breach of rule 3.3 of the CAP Code (VistaPrint Ltd, 4 July 2012). See 'Misleading advertising' for more information.
What if the charges apply per product?
What if the charges apply per order?
What if the charge cannot be calculated in advance?
What if the advertiser cannot deliver to all locations or must charge more for certain locations?
What about ‘Free Delivery’ claims?
What if the charges apply per product?
If delivery charges apply per product and consumers have no option but to pay these to receive the product, this becomes a non-optional charge that must be included in the stated price (rule 3.18). The Competition and Markets Authority's (CMA) guidance on price transparency states that, if there is no free delivery/collection option for an online purchase, the quoted price should include the cost of the cheapest delivery option until the consumer chooses a different option.
The ASA considered an ad for shoes to be misleading because the ad stated the price of the product but did not make the total price, including the delivery fee, clear (Groupon Goods Global GmbH t/a Groupon, 30 May 2018).
What if the charges apply per order?
Prior to the introduction of the Unfair Commercial Practices (UCP) provisions in the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024 (DMCCA), if the charges applied per order, it was likely to be acceptable to state that charges applied close to any stated prices, and to state the associated cost in a prominent qualification.
For example, in 2018 an ad for event tickets on the Get Me In website stated, "Prices may vary from face value and exclude order & delivery fees [hyperlink] (applicable per transaction)”. The ASA considered that the UK delivery fee could have been calculated in advance, and as such the ad should have stated the applicable UK delivery charge close to the ticket price. Because it did not, the ad was deemed to be misleading (GET ME IN! Ltd, 7 March 2018). The ASA also ruled that ads had to make clear if multiple delivery fees applied (Roofoods Ltd t/a Deliveroo, 4 December 2019).
In the absence of ASA precedent following the introduction of the UCP provisions in the DMCCA, it is not yet clear how to present delivery charges which apply per order. However, the ASA may still refer back to its previous rulings. Marketers are advised to refer to the Competition and Markets Authority's (CMA) guidance on price transparency, and seek legal advice.
What if the charge cannot be calculated in advance?
Sometimes it may not be possible to calculate the delivery charge in advance, perhaps because it depends on the size and/or weight of the order, the amount ordered, the delivery location, or other unknown factors (McDonald’s Restaurants Ltd, 26 March 2025). In these circumstances, marketers need to state that such charges are payable (rule 3.20), and must make clear both that the charge is excluded from the advertised price, and how those charges will be calculated (rule 3.19).
Whilst yet to be confirmed by the ASA by way of formal ruling, it is our understanding that, following the introduction of the UCP provisions in the DMCCA, the information required under rule 3.19 needs to be set out with as much prominence as the advertised price. In the absence of any ASA precedent, marketers are advised to refer to the CMA) guidance on price transparency, and seek legal advice on this point.
What if the advertiser cannot deliver to all locations or must charge more for certain locations?
If an advertiser cannot offer delivery to some locations, this must be made clear upfront. Claims which imply that a marketer can deliver to areas that they cannot must be avoided (Achica Ltd, 6 August 2024).
As the UK is made up of England, Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and multiple islands off the coast of each, an absolute claim to offer “[Free/£X/Next Day] UK Delivery” should mean that the marketer offers the advertised delivery service to all of these locations (Noa & Nani Ltd, 18 November 2015). If, for whatever reason, a company is unable to extend their delivery service to certain postcodes, the islands, or the Highlands, then an absolute “UK delivery” claim is likely to mislead. Qualifying this with exclusions is unlikely to be sufficient as this may mislead by contradicting the claims that they qualify (contrary to rule 3.9).
Because the Highlands of Scotland are part of the UK mainland, ads should not state “UK Mainland Delivery” if this excludes the Highlands, or any other location that falls within the major landmass of Great Britain. It may be acceptable to refer to the UK mainland when excluding the islands and Northern Ireland, providing the ad clearly qualifies the claim to make this clear. However, “Mainland GB” is a better claim to use if Northern Ireland is excluded.
For more information on this topic, see CAP’s Enforcement Notice about Advertised Delivery Restrictions and Surcharges.
What about 'free delivery' claims?
Marketers must ensure that free delivery claims are accurate. An ad which stated "... we'll deliver your tickets for free too!*" was misleading because, although ticket collection was free, there was a charge for delivery (Click Travel Ltd t/a takethetrain.co.uk, 14 February 2018). If consumers can pay for delivery in advance, for example by paying a set price for unlimited next day delivery for a year, delivery should not be referred to as “free”. In one case, the ASA upheld complaints about the claim “free delivery” because the service offered consumers a certain number of deliveries for an up-front fee. Although the service did represent a saving compared to the standard individual delivery charge, delivery should not have been described as “free” (Ozsale Pty Ltd t/a MYSALE, 12 December 2018).
Delivery offers that are subject to exclusions or restrictions on availability should avoid absolute claims and instead make clear the limitations from the outset. Absolute claims like “FREE DELIVERY ON ALL ORDERS” or “FREE NEXT DAY DELIVERY ON ALL OF YOUR ORDERS THIS MONTH” are only likely to be acceptable when there are no restrictions (Ebuyer UK Ltd, 17 December 2014). Qualifications which subsequently detail any exclusions to such an absolute claim are likely to mislead by contradicting the claims that they qualify (rule 3.9).
If delivery exclusions or restrictions are based on location, the ad should make this explicitly clear. It is likely to be acceptable to make claims like “Free Delivery to Selected Locations” or “Free Delivery on Some Orders”, provided they are clearly and prominently qualified with clarifications about which locations are (or are not) included.
Similarly, if other conditions or restrictions apply, which mean that free delivery is only available on certain orders, this must be made clear. For example, if a minimum spend applies this will need to be made explicitly clear in the headline claim (e.g. “Free delivery on orders over £X”). If marketers cannot also offer this for all postcodes, that will need to be made clear in the headline claim as well (Roomstogo Ltd, 19 June 2013).
In 2023, Gymshark stated ‘Free Delivery available for orders above £65…ORDER BY 9PM Monday - Friday for next day delivery…’ This was deemed misleading, as Gymshark did not make clear that ‘next day’ meant the day after the item was shipped, rather than the day after the order was placed by the customer (Gymshark Ltd, 8 February 2023).
What if the product is free?
Marketers advertising a product as ‘free’ may charge the un-inflated cost of postage for the item provided it is made clear upfront that this charge applies. This applies to the true un-inflated cost of postage only; if a marketer adds handling, packaging, packing or administration fees, the item can no longer be described as “free” (rule 3.23.1). See PUA Training Ltd, 4 September 2013.
The ASA also upheld a complaint about an app for a photo printing company which stated, “FREE PHOTO PRINTS DELIVERED TO YOUR DOOR”. In some cases, consumers were paying more than the minimum cost of postage to obtain the “free” prints. Consequently, the ASA ruled that the prints should not have been described as ‘free’, as consumers were paying a sum other than the unavoidable cost of delivery. A name such as ‘FreePrints’ should not have been used either. In addition, the ASA told the advertiser to make it clear if consumers had to pay for postage to obtain the ‘free’ prints (PlanetArt UK Ltd, 3 August 2022).
See ‘Use of free’ for further information on using ‘free’ in ads.
Inflated delivery charges
Inflated delivery charges can make price claims misleading. All delivery charges should be accurate and reflect the true cost of delivery. They should not be used to make the selling price of the product seem more attractive (Priyankas Design Pvt Ltd, 6 March 2013).
For more advice on this topic, see CAP’s Enforcement Notice about Advertised Delivery Restrictions and Surcharges.