Background
This Ruling forms part of a wider group of investigations on companies offering CPD (Continuing Professional Development) accreditation services.
Summary of council decision:
Two issues were investigated, both of which were Upheld.
Ad description
A website and paid-for Google search ad for Course Accreditation (CA), an accreditation company:
a. The website https://course-accreditation.com/ seen on 18 December 2025, featured the text “DO YOU TEACH COURSES IN ANY OF THESE INDUSTRIES?” followed by a grid of images listing various types of accreditations. Further down the page, text included “No need to worry. You have comprehensive cover!”. Smaller text underneath stated, “The recognition of CA accreditation extends across various insurance firms on a global hookup scale” and “Feel confident that you can secure training or therapist insurance, ensuring your peace of mind”. The page displayed logos including “PolicyBee Professionally insured”, “QBE” and a gold circular “4u” logo. The page also showed a blue badge that read “CPD INDEX”.
The “About Us” page included the text “Our assessors can evaluate your materials or courses swiftly and efficiently since they have over 200 years of combined experience working in the industry”. Further text stated, “We are globally recognised and we can better your chances of getting insured by our trusted insurance partners!”. A section headed “We are recognised worldwide!” stated, “Put the Course Accreditation Trustmark on your certificate or website, and you’ll attract more clients right away...”. The page displayed a gold laurel logo that read “CA WORLDWIDE COURSE ACCREDITATION” and a button labelled “Join Us NOW!”.
The “Insurance” page featured the headline “Simplify Your Insurance Process with Course Accreditation”. Text included “While we do not offer plans to cover you, our accreditation plays a crucial role in helping training providers and therapists secure the right cover faster and with greater ease”. Further text included “When you’re accredited by Course Accreditation (CA), insurers know your training materials and professional standards have already been thoroughly vetted […] saving you time and hassle”. Under the heading “Explore Insurance Providers”, the page showed the logos “PolicyBee Professionally insured”, “QBE” and “4u”, and stated, “We don’t provide insurance directly. But by choosing Course Accreditation as your accreditation partner, you’re one big step closer to securing the cover you need—confidently and quickly”.
b. A paid-for Google search ad seen on 19 January 2026, included the headline “Course Accreditation”. Text underneath included “UK Leading Accreditation Body — Get accredited in days, not weeks. UK-leading body, worldwide approval. Boost Your Teaching Career with Our Accreditation Subscription. Accreditation from £20. Amenities: Fast Turnaround, Welcome Pack & Directory, Leading Accreditation”.
Issue
The CPD Register Ltd challenged whether the claims in ads:
1. (a) and (b) that Course Accreditation’s assessors had “over 200 years of combined experience working in the industry” and that they were internationally recognised, were misleading and could be substantiated; and
2. (a) that Course Accreditation was recognised by insurers and that accreditation could help consumers obtain insurance through insurance partners worldwide, and the use of organisations’ names and logos, which misleadingly implied an affiliation, were misleading and could be substantiated.
Response
1. Course Accreditation Ltd said the claim that its assessors had “over 200 years of combined experience working in the industry” was based on the cumulative professional experience of the assessors involved in course evaluation and accreditation work at the time the ad appeared. They supplied a breakdown of experience of core staff across their respective sectors, together with information about relevant subcontractors.
They said the claims “UK-leading body” and “globally recognised” were intended to reflect the scope of their operations, their international client base, and the recognition their accreditation services had received from training providers operating in multiple countries. They acknowledged that the claims could be seen as objective and comparative and said they could provide details of their customers inside and outside the UK.
2. In relation to the claims about insurance, they said their intention was to communicate that most training providers holding their accreditation had been able to access, or discuss, insurance options with insurers familiar with accredited training operations. They said they had not received correspondence from customers stating they had been unable to obtain insurance cover because of their accreditation.
They confirmed they had no formal arrangements, partnerships or referral mechanisms in place with any insurance company, and that they did not operate an introduction, recommendation or referral system to insurers. They said any recognition of their accreditation by insurers was determined independently by those insurers. The insurer names and logos on the website were intended to show a selection of providers from whom their customers had obtained insurance.
Assessment
1.Upheld
The ASA considered that consumers were likely to understand the claims in ads (a) and (b), “over 200 years of combined experience working in the industry”, “globally recognised”, “We are recognised worldwide!” and “worldwide approval”, as objective claims about Course Accreditation’s experience and international standing. We therefore expected Course Accreditation to hold documentary evidence to support those claims.
We considered the claim “over 200 years of combined experience working in the industry” to be potentially ambiguous, but that consumers were likely to interpret it in context to mean that the assessors had over 200 years of combined experience assessing and accrediting courses.
Course Accreditation had supplied a breakdown of experience of their core staff in their respective sectors, together with references to subcontractor details and supporting documentation said to include certificates and CPD records. The documents demonstrated that a number of staff members had undertaken relevant qualifications and continuing professional development in subjects including safeguarding, first aid, teaching, beauty, aesthetics, health and safety, and quality assurance. We noted however that the documents primarily related to qualifications and ongoing professional development working in those fields, rather than the length of professional experience in assessing and accrediting courses held by each individual.
We also expected robust documentary evidence to demonstrate that the claims “globally recognised”, “recognised worldwide” and “worldwide approval” reflected widespread international recognition beyond the UK. However, because Course Accreditation did not provide such evidence, the claims also had not been substantiated.
We further considered that, in the absence of any qualification, consumers were likely to interpret the claim “UK-leading body” to mean that they had the largest market share compared to all other accreditation bodies in the UK. The claim was therefore an objective, comparative claim that required substantiation. However, Course Accreditation again did not provide that evidence.
Because the evidence did not demonstrate that the assessors collectively had over 200 years of experience in assessing and accrediting courses, that they had global recognition or approval or that they had the largest market share compared to other accreditation bodies in the UK, we considered that the claims had not been substantiated.
On that point, ads (a) and (b) breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1 (Misleading advertising), 3.7 (Substantiation) and 3.33 (Comparisons with identifiable competitors).
2.Upheld
Ad (a) included various insurance-related claims, including on the homepage “You have comprehensive cover! The recognition of Course Accreditation extends across various insurance firms on a global hookup scale” and “Feel confident that you can secure training or therapist insurance”, on the “About Us” page “we can better your chances of getting insured by our trusted insurance partners”, and the “Insurance” page statements that “insurers know your training materials and professional standards have already been thoroughly vetted”. We considered those claims were likely to be understood by consumers as meaning Course Accreditation was widely recognised by insurers and that they had established relationships with insurers which would make it quicker and easier for accredited training providers and therapists to obtain insurance.
We acknowledged Course Accreditation’s comments that the intention of the claims was to communicate that many accredited training providers had been able to access or discuss insurance options, and that they had not received correspondence from customers indicating that they were unable to obtain cover because of their accreditation. We understood, however, that they had no formal arrangements with any insurance company.
The “About us” page in ad (a) featured a number of logos, including “PolicyBee Professionally insured”, “QBE”, “4u”, “Insync Insurance”, “Hiscox”, “Train Sure”, “AXA” and “Finch”, presented under headings such as “Explore Insurance Providers”. We considered that consumers were likely to interpret the inclusion of these logos, particularly when viewed alongside claims such as being “one big step closer to securing the cover you need”, as indicating that Course Accreditation had arrangements with those specific organisations. However, we understood that no such arrangements existed.
In the absence of evidence demonstrating that accreditation could directly assist consumers in obtaining insurance through their insurance partners worldwide, and because the "About us" implied direct arrangements with named insurers that did not, in fact, exist, we concluded that the claims were misleading.
On that point, ad (a) breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1 (Misleading advertising) and 3.7 (Substantiation).
Action
The ads must not appear again in the form complained of. We told Course Accreditation Ltd to ensure they held documentary evidence to substantiate any objective claims, including those regarding the experience of their assessors, their global recognition, any claim to be a “UK-leading body”, and any other comparative claims. We also told them not to imply that their accreditation was recognised by insurers, or that they had insurance “partners” or established links that would help consumers obtain cover, unless they held adequate evidence to support those claims. We further told them not to imply they had arrangements with other organisations unless that was the case.
