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 also advised to review the resources Amendments to the Advertising Codes following review in response to the DMCCA 2024 and the CAP Code archive.
Displaying prices for post and packaging
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 (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.
Prior to the introduction of the UCPs, if 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 therefore the ad should have stated the applicable UK delivery charge alongside the ticket price. Because it did not, the ASA found the ad to be misleading (GETMEIN! Ltd, 07 March 2018).
In the absence of ASA precedent, following the introduction of the UCPs, it is not yet clear how to present delivery charges which apply per order. Marketers are advised to refer to the CMA's guidance on UCPs and guidance on pricing transparency, and seek legal advice.
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. In these circumstances, marketers 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 seek legal advice on this point.
In the case of optional delivery, freight or postal charges (including taxes) not already included within the total price, and which cannot be calculated in advance, it should be made clear in the ad that such charges are payable (Rule 3.20).
See Compulsory costs and charges: Delivery Charges for more information.
"Free" postage claims
To legitimately describe a product as “free”, promoters may charge only for the minimum, unavoidable cost of responding and collecting or paying for delivery of the item. In other words, promoters can charge for the actual, uninflated cost of postage, but must not charge the consumer for any packing, packaging, handling or administration in relation to the “free” item, as per rule 3.23.1 (see PUA Training Ltd, 04 September 2013). This applies to direct or indirect forms of payment, and will apply even if the promoter requires consumers to provide the packaging (e.g. by sending the promoter a Jiffy bag or envelope). Advertisers should not state that any fee is postage only, if it also includes packaging. The ASA ruled against and ad which quoted an amount as “postage” which included packing (Woods Supplements, 27 June 2007).
The ASA upheld complaints 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, therefore the prints should not have been described as “free”. In addition, the ad breached the Code because it did not make clear that consumers had to pay for postage to obtain the free prints (PlanetArt UK Ltd, 03 August 2022).
See Sharnam Art, 06 March 2013 for another example of an advertiser inflating the delivery charge for a product costing £0.01.
For detailed advice and further examples of relevant rulings, including in respect of “free delivery” and “free item” claims, see Compulsory costs and charges: Delivery Charges.
Use of free may also be of assistance.