Background
Summary of Council decision:
Three issues were investigated, of which two were Upheld and one was Not upheld.
Ad description
Claims on a website for Dent1st Cosmetic Dentistry & Dental Implant Centre, www.dent1st.co.uk, seen in June 2017:
a. A page titled “Better Price Promise” stated “Our Best Price Promise is exactly that - if you can provide us with a valid, recent, written treatment plan from any other clinic, we will either offer better prices on like-for-like treatments or we will match their prices and give you better service and longer warranties”. The ad stated that its prices had “No Hidden costs”. A box to the right stated, “Advanced Dental Implant with Crown (with Aftercare) … Upgradable to superior aesthetic zirconia abutment and zirconia crown for £250 … Special price £1,295”.
b. A "Prices Discounts" page stated, "Free Cosmetic Dentistry Related Services" and in a table below stated, "Free Crown Bridge and Veneer Related Services" and listed "Removal of old crown or bridge unit(s); Preparation; Antagonist Impression; Medication; Surgery Fee and Final Fitting" as FREE or "Free-Included in price".
Issue
1. One complainant, who understood that A3 Medical would not always match the price of another clinic because they were denied a price match, challenged whether ad (a) was misleading.
2. One complainant, who had received an invoice charging them for items described as “FREE”, challenged whether the “FREE” price claims listed in ad (b) were misleading.
3. The other complainant, who understood that there were additional costs to pay above the advertised prices because they had received invoices that included additional charges, challenged whether the claim “No Hidden costs” in ad (a) was misleading.
Response
1. A3 Medical Ltd t/a Dent1st Cosmetic Dentistry & Dental Implant Centre provided a copy of the treatment plan they had given to the patient and the payment plan that the patient had provided. They said these showed that they had offered the patient a lower price than the price offered by their competitor.
2. Dent1st Cosmetic Dentistry & Dental Implant Centre stated that they had recently updated their prices. They stated that their website contained lots of prices and that, if it appeared that some of these prices were no longer correct then they would ensure that they were corrected.
3. Dent1st Cosmetic Dentistry & Dental Implant Centre said that they listed all possible procedures under each implant type on their website which included a list of the procedures involved in the regular treatment. They said that implant treatments were medical treatments and all treatments were different. They said that in this case the patient had some small treatment fees that were not included in the advertised treatment because they were additional optional treatments. They said that they could not possibly include every variation of these additional treatments as part of the £1,295 price because that would have been misleading. They stated that not all patients needed these additional treatments and they were not part of the standard treatment plan. However, they said that these additional treatments were all listed on their website. In this case, they said that sometimes the treatment in ad (a) was not suitable for some patients, and therefore they would have needed a different treatment which may have included some additional items which would have increased the cost. They further stated that some procedures such as “Impression taking” were not included in the standard treatment plan cost because some patients had their crowns placed at their local dentist and so they would not need an impression, and some patients used cheaper or free types of impression. They stated that none of these costs were “hidden” because they appeared in their full price lists on their website.
Assessment
1. Not upheld
The ASA considered that consumers would understand the claim “we will either offer better prices on like-for-like treatments or we will match their prices” to mean that Dent1st Cosmetic Dentistry & Dental Implant Centre would offer a better or the same price for a treatment plan that was the same as the one provided by a competitor, if a valid, recent, written treatment plan from any other clinic was provided to them. The ASA was satisfied that Dent1st Cosmetic Dentistry & Dental Implant Centre had provided sufficient substantiation to show that they did match the price offered by competitors as claimed in ad (a). We therefore concluded that the claim was not misleading.
On this point we investigated ad (a) under CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1 3.1 Marketing communications must not materially mislead or be likely to do so. (Misleading advertising), 3.7 3.7 Before distributing or submitting a marketing communication for publication, marketers must hold documentary evidence to prove claims that consumers are likely to regard as objective and that are capable of objective substantiation. The ASA may regard claims as misleading in the absence of adequate substantiation. (Substantiation) and 3.17 3.17 Price statements must not mislead by omission, undue emphasis or distortion. They must relate to the product featured in the marketing communication. (Prices) but did not find it in breach.
2. Upheld
Ad (b) stated that the services listed as free were “Free Crown Bridge and Veneer Related services”. We considered these were likely to be services provided as part of a package which required consumers to have already paid for a crown bridge or veneer and therefore should have been described as “inclusive” rather than “free”, unless those services were newly added and did not increase the cost of the package. We also noted that Dent1st Cosmetic Dentistry & Dental Implant Centre told us that in some cases the prices in the “Free” section of the website did not reflect the current prices. Because the services described as “free” in fact appeared to be an inclusive part of the package, we therefore concluded that the “Free” price claims in ad (b) were misleading.
On this point ad (b) breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules
3.1
3.1
Marketing communications must not materially mislead or be likely to do so.
and
3.3
3.3
Marketing communications must not mislead the consumer by omitting material information. They must not mislead by hiding material information or presenting it in an unclear, unintelligible, ambiguous or untimely manner.
Material information is information that the consumer needs to make informed decisions in relation to a product. 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.
(Misleading advertising),
3.7
3.7
Before distributing or submitting a marketing communication for publication, marketers must hold documentary evidence to prove claims that consumers are likely to regard as objective and that are capable of objective substantiation. The ASA may regard claims as misleading in the absence of adequate substantiation.
(Substantiation),
3.17
3.17
Price statements must not mislead by omission, undue emphasis or distortion. They must relate to the product featured in the marketing communication.
(Prices) and 3.25 (Free).
3. Upheld
We considered that consumers would regard the claim “No Hidden Costs” in ad (a) to mean that all the costs would be detailed on the page. In this case, the page stated that the costs would include “Advanced Dental Implant with Crown (with Aftercare)”. We therefore considered that consumers would expect that the cost would include everything involved in this treatment. We considered that consumers would understand that treatments may vary due to the individual, but we considered that it was not made clear from the ad this would result in a variation in price, and we therefore considered that consumers would expect from the ad, that even if there were variations in how their treatment was administered, that they would still receive the treatment for the advertised price.
We accepted that in some cases there may be reasons why the treatment may cost more. We therefore expected that these were significant terms that should have been displayed with the ad. Because this was not the case, we therefore concluded that the price claims in ad (a) were misleading.
On this point ad (a) breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules
3.1
3.1
Marketing communications must not materially mislead or be likely to do so.
and
3.3
3.3
Marketing communications must not mislead the consumer by omitting material information. They must not mislead by hiding material information or presenting it in an unclear, unintelligible, ambiguous or untimely manner.
Material information is information that the consumer needs to make informed decisions in relation to a product. 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.
(Misleading advertising),
3.7
3.7
Before distributing or submitting a marketing communication for publication, marketers must hold documentary evidence to prove claims that consumers are likely to regard as objective and that are capable of objective substantiation. The ASA may regard claims as misleading in the absence of adequate substantiation.
(Substantiation) and
3.17
3.17
Price statements must not mislead by omission, undue emphasis or distortion. They must relate to the product featured in the marketing communication.
(Prices).
Action
The ads must not appear again in their current form. We told A3 Medical Ltd not to describe items as free which were not. We also told A3 Medical Ltd not to state that there were “No hidden costs” if consumers could incur costs that did not appear in the ad.
