Ad description
An email and a paid-for Google search ad for AliExpress:
a. The email, dated 23 April 2025, included the subject, “Price drop on your carted items”. The email included images for products sold on AliExpress with discounted prices. The email stated, “Mini Trail Hunting Camera 20MP 1080P Wildlife … £2.31 - £48.74 | -77%” with the text “£48.74” crossed out, next to a product image of a wildlife camera.
Text below an image of a machine head for a tabletop electronic racquet stringing machine stated, “£80.42”.
b. The paid-for Google search ad for LORA Wireless PLC sold on AliExpress seen on 2 July 2025, featured an image of a LORA Converter and the text “RS232/485/422 – LORA Wireless PLC Long Rage [sic] Radio Communication Module RS485…”. Below the text was the price “£7.79”.
Issue
Two complainants, who understood that the price statements in ads (a) and (b) related to a part for the products rather than the product itself, challenged whether the ads were misleading.
Response
Alibaba.com Singapore E-Commerce Private Ltd t/a AliExpress explained that their platform allowed sellers to group different product versions within a single listing, but that combining items with significantly different prices was not permitted.
They explained that marketing emails were generated at the listing level, based on price adjustments within that listing. The primary image and description provided by the seller were replicated without editorial changes. For paid-for search ads, they said the displayed price was determined by the lowest-priced version of the product, and the image was automatically selected from those supplied in the product data feed.
In relation to ad (a), they said the listings should have been flagged as non-compliant. They said that the sellers had incorrectly combined the main products and their components in one listing. When a price drop occurred for a component, the system generated a promotional email showing the reduced price alongside an image of the main product. They said the listings were removed, a formal warning was issued to the sellers, and the algorithm was updated to exclude similar listings from promotional emails.
In relation to ad (b), they said the price shown was based on the lowest-priced version of the product, and the image had been selected by Google. They assured us that the product had been removed from Google search.
Assessment
Upheld
Ad (a) featured an image of a wildlife camera with text stating “Mini Trail Hunting Camera 20MP 1080P Wildlife …” and the price “£2.31”. A separate image showed a machine head for a tabletop racquet stringing machine with the price “£80.42”. In ad (b), an image of a LORA converter was pictured alongside the price “£7.79”. We considered consumers would understand the prices related to the full product shown in the images and described in the ads. As such, we expected to see that the products were available at the prices stated.
We understood that was not the case, and that the prices related to components or accessories which had been included in the same listing, rather than to the main products featured in the images. For example, the price of the wildlife camera shown in the ad was £13.89, whereas the £2.31 price related to a memory card for the camera. The stringing machine head featured in the image was £761.90, and the LORA converter was £37.09. We acknowledged that the sellers were not supposed to group parts and products with significantly different prices in the same listings, and that the ads were generated automatically from those listings. However, as the price statements did not relate to the product featured in the marketing communication, we concluded that the ads were misleading.
The ads breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1 and 3.3 (Misleading advertising), and 3.17 (Prices).
Action
The ads must not appear in the form complained of. We told Alibaba.com Singapore E-Commerce Private Ltd t/a AliExpress to ensure that future price statements related to the products featured in their marketing communications.
