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.
‘Leading’ claims are likely to be interpreted to mean best-selling, unless the ad makes an alternative meaning clear. These claims are likely to be considered objective comparisons.
The CAP Code requires advertisers to hold documentary evidence to substantiate claims that consumers are likely to regard as objective and that are capable of objective substantiation. Additionally, any comparisons with identifiable competitors must be verifiable and comply with other relevant comparisons rules (Rules 3.33 – 3.37). See also Comparisons: Identifiable competitors, Types of Claims: “Best-selling” and Comparisons: General
How will consumers interpret the claim?
Is sales data always required?
How will consumers interpret the claim?
When making unqualified “leading” claims, it is likely that these will be understood as best-selling claims. For example, the ASA determined that consumers were likely to interpret the claim ‘UK’s Leading P.Is’ to mean the advertiser had the largest market share compared to other such firms in the UK (PEL Consultancy Services Ltd t/a PEL Investigations, 11 May 2022).
CAP recommends that marketers exercise caution when using ‘leading’ claims to denote anything other than ‘best-selling’, by ensuring that any other intended meaning is both clear in the ad and supported by evidence.
By way of example, the ASA considered that consumers would understand the claim “Why AnyJunk? … Industry leading green creds” to be an objective claim that AnyJunk was ranked the highest in terms of being environmentally friendly compared to all other rubbish removal companies (Anyjunk Ltd, 30 May 2018). The ASA also thought ”a leading expert in cosmetic surgery and breast surgery” would be interpreted by consumers as a reference to turnover and expertise, rather than the age of the establishment, as was intended (The Belvedere Clinic Ltd, 5 July 2023).
Similarly, the ASA said the claim ‘London’s leading clinical skills and aesthetic medicine training provider’ was, in the absence of further information, ambiguous. The ASA considered the claim would be understood by consumers to mean the advertiser led every other London-based provider in terms of student numbers or in terms of quality of education once measured objectively and independently. Given there was a lack of evidence to substantiate what ASA considered to be the likely interpretation, the ad was considered misleading (Centre For Medical Sciences & Research Ltd, 31 August 2022).
Marketers may sometimes intend for a “leading” claim to mean “first to the market” or “innovative”. For the ASA to accept that interpretation, marketers need to have made their intention clear, else the ASA may well decide that consumers would simply interpret the claim as a best-selling claim, or as an indication that the advertiser has the greatest market share (Air Cleaning Systems Ltd, February 2014). An example of how an advertiser can make their intention clear can be seen in a 2013 ruling, in which the ASA accepted that the claim “world-leading technology”, which appeared alongside the claim “innovative solutions”, was likely to be understood by consumers as referring to the inventive nature of the product rather than market share (Eco Solutions, 16 October 2013).
Whilst there may be occasional situations in which the ASA would interpret a “leading” claim as being the subjective opinion of the advertiser, in practice such claims will almost always be regarded as objective. See Types of Claims: Puffery and expression of opinion.
Substantiation
The CAP Code requires advertisers to hold documentary evidence to substantiate claims that consumers are likely to regard as objective and that are capable of objective substantiation (Rule 3.7). The nature of the evidence required to substantiate ‘leading’ claims will vary depending on the context in which the claim is made and how it is likely to be understood by its audience.
Given unqualified ‘leading’ claims are likely to be understood as best-selling claims, comparative evidence relating to unit-sales, market share, or both, will be required.
For example, the ASA determined that the AA’s claim to be ‘The UK’s number 1 breakdown service provider’ would be interpreted as a ‘best-selling’ claim, in other words that the AA had the most members compared to their competitors in the UK breakdown insurance market. The ad was considered misleading, because the AA did not have membership figures of their competitors to compare against their own, meaning the evidence was deemed inadequate (AA Ltd, 20 July 2022).
However, as noted in How will consumers interpret the claim, it is not always the case that ‘leading’ claims will be understood as ‘best-selling’ claims. Marketers must hold evidence to support the likely interpretation of a ‘leading’ claim. By way of illustration, the ASA considered that, in the absence of any qualification, consumers were likely to understand the claim “THE UK'S LEADING PROFESSIONAL ORGANISATION FOR INTERIOR DESIGNERS” to mean that, relative to other organisations in the field, the advertiser had the highest total number of members. As the advertiser had only provided evidence that compared its size with one other organisation, the ASA said this was not enough to show that the advertiser had the highest number of members relative to other interior design bodies in the UK (British Institute of Interior Design, 18 December 2019).
The ASA also ruled against an ad which stated “the leading home show brand in the UK…”, because whilst the advertisers had evidence relating to the total number of people involved in the show, including staff and exhibitors, the ASA considered that the claim would be interpreted to mean this show continuously had the highest attendance rate of consumers compared to competing events. The advertiser did not have the evidence to substantiate this position, and the ad was therefore deemed to be misleading (Media 10 Ltd, 30 August 2017).
Self-reported consumer data or third-party awards will not be sufficient to support claims otherwise requiring objective substantiation. See Substantiation: Consumer surveys and sample claims for more information
Verifiability
Marketing communications do not need to explicitly identify a competitor or product being compared to be subject to the rules on comparisons with 'identifiable' competitors. If a consumer can identify at least one competitor or competing product, regardless of whether it is identified explicitly in the ad, rules 3.33 – 3.37 will apply. In most cases, 'leading’ claims are likely to be understood as comparisons with identifiable competitors. This type of comparison is allowed if it is based on objective criteria, and is presented in a way that is unlikely to mislead. See Comparisons: identifiable competitors.
The CAP Code requires that comparisons with identifiable competitor products must objectively compare one or more material, relevant, verifiable and representative feature of those products (Rule 3.35).
The information required to make a claim verifiable will depend entirely on the specific comparison and the evidence used to support it. Marketers should include, or direct consumers to, sufficient objective information and data to ensure that consumers are able to check the claims are accurate for themselves. If verifying the comparison requires specialist knowledge, consumers should be able to get a knowledgeable and independent person or organisation to verify the comparison for them.
By way of example, the ASA considered that consumers would understand the claim “Industry Leading Performance and Reliability” to mean that the products provided by the advertiser had superior performance and were more reliable than comparable competitor products. The claim was deemed a comparison with identifiable competitors, meaning the requirement to verify the claim applied. This claim breached the CAP Code, not only because Trappex could not substantiate their claims, but also due to an absence of, or direction to, information allowing consumers to check the accuracy of, or verify, the claim (Trappex Ltd, 18 August 2021). See also The Belvedere Clinic Ltd, 5 July 2023
For detailed advice on this requirement, see Comparisons: Verifiability.
Is sales data always required?
In most cases, a “leading” claim will be interpreted as a best-selling claim that needs to be supported by evidence relating to sales or market share. However, in some circumstances, advertisers may be able to substantiate such claims without holding objective evidence relating to sales.
For example, in 2018 the ASA accepted data collated over a six-month period which compared an advertiser’s web traffic with its competitors. The results showed that the number of unique visitors was more than its four closest competitors combined and more than double the number of total visits than its closest competitor. The ASA considered that, while visitor numbers alone were generally not a guaranteed indication of market share, because the difference in web traffic was so great, in these circumstances it was reasonable to infer that the advertiser was the leading provider(Medichecks.com Ltd, 14 February 2018). For more information on this type of comparison, see Web Traffic.