Background
One point was investigated and resolved informally with the advertiser’s agreement to make changes.
A substantiation challenge was raised about the claims “tax-free assets” and “tax-free investment". The claims were amended to “capital gains tax-free assets” and “capital gains tax-free investment"
Summary of Council decision:
Four issues were investigated, all of which were Upheld.
Ad description
A website for Capgroup, www.capgroupint.com, a whisky cask and gold coin investment company, seen in April 2026.
The home page stated they had 27,023 “Excellent” Trustpilot reviews. Text beneath stated, “Your Gateway to Alternative Investments: We specialise in helping our clients diversify their portfolios and hedge against inflation with tangible, tax-free assets that offer both stability and potential long-term value.” Further text stated, “as seen on” and displayed the logos of Sky News, The Times, Daily Mail, GB News, Metro and The Telegraph. It further stated, “We specialise in tangible, tax-free investment opportunities designed to preserve and grow your capital with confidence.”
Under the sub-heading “Why Whiskey [sic] Is the Perfect Investment” it stated, “A slow-maturing, high performing asset class with global scarcity and strong returns”; “Consistent Growth: Rare Whiskey [sic] has delivered average returns of 8 to 15 percent [sic] per year, outperforming many traditional investments”; and “Supply cannot catch up, pushing prices higher”.
Issue
The complainant challenged whether the following claims were misleading and could be substantiated:
1. “Excellent…27,023 reviews on TrustPilot”; and
2. “as seen on” alongside the logos of Sky News, The Times, Daily Mail, GB News, Metro and The Telegraph.
The ASA challenged whether the ad:
3. was misleading because it did not make clear material information about the risks of the investments; and
4. breached the Code because it did not make clear the value of investments was variable or that past performance did not necessarily give a guide for the future.
Response
1. & 2. Capgroup Int Ltd (Capgroup) said their company had traded under three names, all under the same Companies House registration number. Their original name was London Cask Co Ltd, that was changed to Caskcap Ltd in 2024 and then Capgroup Int Ltd in May 2025.
Capgroup said the Trustpilot rating had been removed from the website and was now under review.
Regarding the claim “as seen on” they stated that the logos were displayed to reflect paid advertising placements and media coverage in those publications and not editorial endorsements. They had also commissioned TV ads and so used the wording “as seen on” for that reason. Specifically, they had placed paid advertorials in various national news publications. Regarding one of the national newspapers named in the ad, they acknowledged that it had been placed when Capgroup traded under a different name but was still the same underlying business. They said the claim “as seen on” was under review and they would remove it if necessary.
3. Capgroup acknowledged that information about whisky cask and physical gold investment products not being regulated was material. They said they had since added prominent wording on their website confirming their products were not regulated investments.
4. Capgroup said the ad should have included warnings that investments could go down as well as up and that past performance did not indicate future results. They said that they had amended the website to include appropriate wording to reflect the variable nature of investments and that past performance was not an indication for the future.
They said regarding the claim “8 to 15 percent [sic] per year” they had analysed their records. They explained they had 83 casks for which they held complete pricing data and it covered purchases made between 2021 and 2023. They confirmed they had original purchase prices and current assessed market values for the casks. They said the average annualised return (based on original purchase price to current/achieved sale price) was 12.7%. The median annualised return was 10.1%. The range of annualised returns was 4.4% to 28.5%. They confirmed that the casks delivering returns within the 8–15% range stated in the advertisement was 54 out of 83 (65%). They acknowledged that some casks had therefore delivered below 8% and so the claim did not apply to all casks. They said they would therefore remove the claim from their website. However, they believed the 8–15% figure was rooted in the actual performance of the majority of their client portfolio.
Assessment
1. & 2. Upheld
The CAP Code stated that marketing communications must not materially mislead or be likely to do so.
The ad stated, “Excellent…27,023 reviews on TrustPilot” alongside an image showing four and a half stars. Consumers would therefore expect that the Trustpilot page for Capgroup to reflect that score and the number of reviews. The ASA understood, however, that they had no such rating and Capgroup had now removed the claim from their website.
The ad further stated, “as seen on” and displayed the logos of various national news publications. We understood that Capgroup had paid for advertorials in a number of the publications, although the content in one of them had been under a previous company name. We considered that consumers were likely to understand “as seen on” alongside the logos to mean those media companies had chosen to run editorial features on Capgroup. Because that was not the case and because the Trustpilot score was not accurate, we concluded that the ad was misleading.
On those points, the ad breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1 (Misleading advertising), 3.7 (Substantiation) and 3.47 (Endorsements and testimonials).
3. Upheld
The CAP Code required that material information should not be omitted and should be presented clearly.
We understood that the whisky cask and physical gold investment market was not regulated within the UK, nor was it subject to the protections afforded by the Financial Services Compensation Scheme or the Financial Ombudsman Service. We considered that was material information that consumers required in order to make informed decisions about Capgroup’s services.
We noted that the ad stated, “Your Gateway to Alternative Investments: We specialise in helping our clients diversify their portfolios and hedge against inflation with tangible, tax-free assets that offer both stability and potential long-term value” and “We specialise in tangible, tax-free investment opportunities designed to preserve and grow your capital with confidence.” It was therefore an ad for investment products. However, the ad, which was not limited by space, contained no information prominently stating that whisky cask and physical gold investments were unregulated.
Because the ad did not make clear that whisky cask and physical gold investments were unregulated, we concluded that it was misleading.
On that point, the ads breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1 and 3.3 (Misleading advertising).
4. Upheld
Section 14 of the CAP Code, which reflected rules prescribed by the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) on promotional material for regulated investments, required that financial marketing communications not regulated by the FCA should make clear that the value of investments was variable and, unless guaranteed, could go down as well as up. Further, ads should make clear that past performance or experience did not necessarily give a guide for the future; if they are used in marketing communications, examples of past performance or experience should not be unrepresentative.
Given the greater potential for significant financial harm resulting from financial marketing communications, those rules were additional to and more prescriptive than the rules on misleading advertising. That meant that relevant risk warnings prescribed by section 14 of the CAP Code needed to be in the initial ad and not later in the consumer journey, for instance on a linked page, or in the terms and conditions.
The ad stated, “Consistent Growth: Rare Whiskey [sic] has delivered average returns of 8 to 15 percent [sic] per year, outperforming many traditional investments”. It therefore made reference to past performance.
The ad included no risk warnings to make clear that investments could go down as well as up or that past performance was not a guide for the future. Further, we understood the evidence provided to support the claim that “Rare Whiskey [sic] has delivered average returns of 8 to 15 percent [sic] per year” only applied to 65% of casks and the selling prices were based, in part, on valuations and not actual sold items. Therefore, the example had not been substantiated and was not representative. We therefore concluded that the ad breached the Code.
On that point, the ad breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.7 (Substantiation) and 14.4 and 14.5 (Financial products).
Action
The ad must not appear again in the form complained about. We told Capgroup Int Ltd to ensure that their ads did not mislead by presenting an incorrect Trustpilot score or imply that news publications had chosen to run editorial features on them, if that was not the case. Further, ads should make clear that whisky cask and physical gold investment was unregulated, that the value of investments was variable and could go down as well as up, that examples of past performance or experience were not necessarily a guide to the future and examples of past performance should be representative.
