-
Mazda Motors UK Ltd
A paid-for Meta ad for the Mazda2 Hybrid car gave a misleading impression of the vehicle’s environment impact and made absolute claims that couldn’t be evidenced.
-
TravelCircle Ltd t/a Cruise Circle
A webpage advertising cruise operator failed to make the basis of environmental and comparative claims clear and didn’t substantiate the environmental claims made in relation to the full life cycle of a cruise.
-
Vacaciones eDreams, S.L. t/a eDreams
Two paid-for online display ads made unsubstantiated environmental claims.
-
Charles Tyrwhitt Shirts Ltd
The ASA challenged whether the ad was misleading because it failed to make the basis of the claim “Carbon Neutral business” clear. Charles Tyrwhitt Shirts said that all claims they made about their carbon neutrality were factually correct. They said these claims were based on a report, achieved through a partnership with the sustainability consultancy Planet Mark and under the guidelines of PAS2060, the specification published by the British Standards Institution detailing how companies should demonstrate their carbon neutrality. Upheld The CAP Code required that the basis of environmental claims must be clear and stated that unqualified claims could mislead if material information was omitted. CAP Guidance stated that advertisers should avoid using unqualified carbon neutral claims, and because information explaining the basis for those claims helped consumers’ understanding, such information should therefore not be omitted. It further stated that accurate information about whether (and the degree to which) the claim was based on an active reduction carbon emissions or based on offsetting should be included in ads to ensure consumers understood the basis on which carbon neutrality was achieved. The ASA considered that consumers would understand from the ad that Charles Tyrwhitt Shirts was a carbon neutral company, meaning that, as a business, they balanced the amount of carbon emitted into the atmosphere by an equivalent amount removed. Within that context, we considered consumers would understand that purchasing a Charles Tyrwhitt Shirts product would have a net neutral impact on carbon emissions and, therefore, climate change. However, we considered there was no information in the ad which explained the basis for Charles Tyrwhitt Shirts’ claim that they were a “carbon neutral business”. Although we acknowledged that Charles Tyrwhitt Shirts had based their claim on a report by a sustainability consultancy which they said demonstrated their carbon neutrality, we considered that they had not provided any qualifying information within the ad for the basis of the “carbon neutral” claim. Because there was no qualifying information in the ad which outlined the basis for the “carbon neutral” claim, which we considered was significant information that consumers needed to know in order to fully understand the claim’s meaning, we concluded that the ad was misleading. The ad breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rule 3.1, 3.3 (Misleading advertising) and 11.1 (Environmental claims). The ad must not appear again in the form complained about. We told Charles Tyrwhitt Shirts Ltd to ensure that the basis of future environmental claims were clear.
-
JC Atkinson & Son Ltd
An ad on the company’s website misleadingly implied that their MDF coffins were more eco-friendly than other options, without sufficient evidence.
-
Barrhead Travel Service Ltd t/a Barrhead Travel
A paid-for Google ad for a travel agency gave a misleading impression of the advertised cruises’ environmental impact by failing to make the basis of environmental claims clear and not holding robust substantiation to support them.
-
Hurtigruten UK Ltd t/a HX Hurtigruten Expeditions
A paid-for ad in a digital newspaper for a cruise made misleading and unsubstantiated claims about the environmental impact of the expedition and failed to make the basis of these environmental claims clear.
-
Unilever UK Ltd
A TV ad for Persil washing liquid broke the rules by making misleading and unsubstantiated claims that the product was “kinder to our planet”.
-
BrewDog plc
definition of carbon negative. Upheld The CAP Code required that the basis of environmental claims must … environmental claim clear because it did not provide information in the ad on the basis for the “carbon … (Environmental claims). The ad must not appear again in its current form. We told Brewdog Plc to ensure the basis of environmental claims was clear in future ads.
-
Renault UK Ltd t/a Dacia, Renault
A paid-for Meta ad misleading claimed that a hybrid car drove “Up to 80% electric driving in the city”, which was unclear.
-
Aramco Overseas Oil Company BV t/a Aramco
Paid-for LinkedIn, Google and Instagram ads featuring a Formula 1 car did not make misleading environmental claims.
-
Air France-KLM
A paid-for Google ad gave a misleading impression of the airline’s environmental impact.
-
Etihad Airways
A paid-for Google ad gave a misleading impression of the airline’s environmental impact.
-
Sunshine Cruise Holidays Ltd t/a cruise 1st
A webpage advertising a cruise operator failed to make the basis of environmental and comparative claims clear, didn’t hold appropriate evidence to support such claims and omitted material information about the environmental impact of the cruises they sold.
-
Deutsche Lufthansa AG t/a Lufthansa
A poster for Lufthansa made misleading claims about the airline’s environmental impact.
-
TIER Operations Ltd
A poster ad for an electric scooter hire company was banned for making misleading environmental claims.
-
Alpro (UK) Ltd t/a Alpro
A poster for an almond drink was banned for making misleading environmental claims, in particular, that the product was ‘good for the planet’.
-
Innocent Ltd t/a Innocent
A video on demand ad, a paid-for YouTube and a TV ad for Innocent drinks was banned for exaggerating the total environmental benefit of the products.
-
www.Cruise.co.uk Ltd t/a SeaScanner
A webpage advertising a cruise operator made misleading environmental and comparative claims, including by omitting material information about the environmental impact of the advertised cruise ship.
-
Golden Leaves Ltd
An ad on the company’s website misleadingly implied that their MDF coffins were more eco-friendly than other options, without sufficient evidence.
-
British Airways plc
-
Bodywise (UK) Ltd
-
Vauxhall Motors Ltd
-
Polestar Automotive UK Ltd
-
Bentley Motors Ltd
-
Omni Pet Ltd
-
IEdiSA SA
-
Brand Developers Ltd
-
Opodo Ltd t/a Opodo
-
TUI UK Ltd
-
Fuse Energy Supply Ltd
-
The Offshore Energies Association Ltd t/a OEUK
-
Nissan Motor (GB) Ltd
-
Anchor Hanover Group
-
Quooker UK Ltd
Media: Newspaper
-
easyJet Airline Co Ltd
-
Prestige Gifting Ltd
-
BrewDog plc
-
Viking Energy Partnership