Background
Summary of Council decision:
Four issues were investigated, all of which were Upheld.
Ad description
A website for a pay-per-bid auction site, www.bidbid.co.uk, seen on 2 August 2016. The home page featured a banner near the top with text that stated "1 Create an account 2 Choose your products 3 Bid and win", with a yellow “Sign up” button next to the banner. The page also included a number of live auction listings, which featured the products being bid on, the current price and countdown timers.
The page titled 'CLOSED AUCTIONS' featured a list of closed auctions, including, for example, an “HP Envy x360 15-W104NA …”. The listing contained text that stated “Ended £14.29”, with a tick symbol next to the word “SOLD”. The listing was also linked through to the individual product page titled “HP Envy x360 15-W104NA Convertible Laptop, Intel Core i7, 12GB RAM, 1 TB, 15.6" Touchscreen and HP Envy Laptop Sleeve". The product page also contained text that stated "Price: £14.29 Ended Retail price: £699.99 Price: £14.29 Your savings: £685.70 ... Shipping Fee: £24.99 Auction type(s): 1p auction". The page also featured the bidding history for the product.
Issue
The ASA challenged whether:
1. the home page was misleading, because it did not make clear the cost of individual bids or credit packages;
2. the claims “Price: £[x]” on the product pages for closed auctions were misleading, because they did not include the delivery or biddings cost;
3. the claims “Retail price: £[x]” on the product pages for closed auctions were misleading and could be substantiated; and
4. the claims “Your savings: £[x]” on the product pages for closed auctions were misleading and could be substantiated.
Response
BidBid.co.uk did not provide a substantive response to the ASA’s enquiries.
Assessment
The ASA was concerned by BidBid.co.uk’s lack of response and apparent disregard for the Code, which was a breach of CAP Code rule 1.7 (Unreasonable delay). We reminded them of their responsibility to provide a response to our enquiries and told them to do so in the future.
1. Upheld
The ASA considered that the prominent banner at the top of the home page, which set out the three steps “1 Create an account 2 Choose your products 3 Bid and win”, was likely to give an impression that consumers would only need to follow those steps to bid on auction items straightaway and that no additional costs would apply.
We understood that in order to participate in the auctions, consumers were required to purchase ‘bids’ at the price of £0.50 each, which were sold in packages of 10 bids or more. We considered the fact that consumers had to pay to place bids was material information that consumers required in order to make an informed decision about whether or not to participate in BidBid.co.uk’s auctions, and therefore should be made clear in the ad before consumers proceeded to register for an account.
We noted that the top right corner of each live auction listed on the home page featured a small green icon that stated “Ic”. When users hovered their cursors over the icon, a pop-up text box was revealed, with text that stated “Pay a predetermined price for each bid, and when each bid is placed, the item price increases by a penny (0.01)”. While that text made clear that consumers would be required to purchase bids, we considered that it did not make sufficiently clear the costs that applied to the purchase of bids. We were also concerned that the positioning of such information was likely to be missed by consumers as it was not adequately prominent. We further noted that information about the cost of individual bids and credit packages had not been stated elsewhere on BidBid.co.uk prior to sign up.
Because the ad omitted material information about the cost of individual bids and bid packages, we concluded that it was misleading.
On that point, the ad 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).
2. Upheld
We considered that consumers were likely to understand that the prices stated in the displayed listings on the ‘CLOSED AUCTIONS’ page, and in the claims “Price: £[x]” on the individual closed auction product pages, represented the total amounts that successful bidders had paid for those items.
Because consumers were required to purchase bids in order to participate and therefore additional costs were applicable, and because it would be possible for BidBid.co.uk to calculate the cost of the bids placed given that the listings displayed were closed auctions, we considered that the additional costs of purchasing the bids should be incorporated into the “SOLD” prices. However, we had not received any documentary evidence to demonstrate that the “SOLD” prices reflected the full costs borne by the successful bidders.
In addition, we understood that shipping fees were chargeable and that such costs would often be comparable to, or greater than, the “SOLD” prices. For example, we noted that a shipping fee of £24.99 applied to the 'HP Envy x360 15-W104NA Convertible Laptop”, which had a “SOLD” price of £14.29. As the amount of shipping fees could impact on the overall savings that consumers could achieve, we considered that to be material information that consumers required in order to make an informed decision and therefore should have been made immediately clear alongside the “SOLD” prices. While the individual product pages included information about the cost of the shipping fee, we noted that such information was set out in small font and in a section further down the page that included other information about the auctions; it was not stated immediately alongside the “SOLD” price.
Because we had not seen any evidence to demonstrate that the “SOLD” prices included the costs of bids, and because the cost of shipping had not been made sufficiently clear, we concluded that the “SOLD” price claims were misleading.
On that point, the ad breached 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).
3. Upheld
We considered that consumers were likely to understand that the claims “Retail Price: £[x]” on the individual auction product pages represented the prices at which the featured products were generally sold across the market by other retailers. For example, we considered that consumers were likely to expect from the claim “Retail Price: £699.99” on the HP convertible laptop product page that it had been generally sold across the market at that price. We therefore expected to see documentary evidence to demonstrate that the products had been generally sold across the market by a selection of other retailers. In the absence of any evidence, we concluded that the “Retail Price: £[x]” claims had not been substantiated and were therefore misleading.
On that point, the ad breached 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), 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 3.40 3.40 Price comparisons must not mislead by falsely claiming a price advantage. Comparisons with a recommended retail prices (RRPs) are likely to mislead if the RRP differs significantly from the price at which the product or service is generally sold. (Price comparisons).
4. Upheld
We considered that consumers were likely to expect that the claims “Your savings: £[x]” on the closed auction product pages represented genuine savings successful bidders had made in comparison to the prices at which the items were generally sold across the market by other retailers, as represented by “Retail Price: £[x]”. We also considered that consumers were likely to expect that they might be able to make comparable savings if they bid on the same, or similar, items in the future. As we had not been supplied with evidence to show that the “SOLD” prices were the total amounts that successful bidders had paid to secure the items and that, and that the “Retail price” claims were the prices at which the products were generally sold across the market, we considered that BidBid.co.uk had not substantiated the “Your savings: £[x]” claims. We therefore concluded that the savings claims were misleading.
On that point, the ad 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), and
3.40
3.40
Price comparisons must not mislead by falsely claiming a price advantage. Comparisons with a recommended retail prices (RRPs) are likely to mislead if the RRP differs significantly from the price at which the product or service is generally sold.
(Price comparisons).
Action
The ad must not appear again in its current form. We told BidBid.co.uk to ensure that ads made clear any material information about the cost of individual bids and bid packages to consumers before they registered for an account. We also told them to ensure that their “sold” prices included the cost of bids, and that they did not make “Retail Price” claims or savings claims, unless they held adequate evidence to substantiate those claims.
