Background
Summary of Council decision:
Three issues were investigated, all of which were upheld.
Ad description
A website for Cult Wines, www.wineinvestment.com, a wine investment company, seen in June 2025, included text that stated “An asset worth waiting for” and showed a drop down menu with dates that could be changed. On the left of the page, the number of years could be amended and selected, for example, to state “2 years ago” with main text stating “If you invested £505,000”. On the right of this illustration, text stated “you would have […] today” and selecting two years the figure of “£626,503” was displayed. Smaller text below stated “Calculation based on the CAGR of the Cult Wine Investment Performance (GBP) since October 2009. The Cult Wine Investment Performance tracks the overall value of our investors' holdings over time, rebased at the price of purchase. Calculation excludes fees“. At the bottom of the webpage the text “Disclaimer” stated “Past performance is not indicative of future results. Returns are calculated in GBP and results may vary depending on exchange rates”.Issue
1. The complainant challenged whether the investment return claims were misleading and could be substantiated.
The ASA also challenged whether the ad was misleading because it did not make clear:
2. the risks involved in wine investment, as an unregulated product; and
3. that past performance did not necessarily give a guide for the future.
Response
1. Cult Wines Ltd stated that the investment return illustration used their own performance index and was based on historic market data. They also stated that the data had been calculated without including any fluctuations in the growth of the fine wine market over time. They stated that the illustration on their website was intended as a demonstration of the type of returns that fine wine had achieved. They also stated that they recognised that the tool had the potential to cause confusion because the fine wine market was currently in decline and they had therefore removed the tool from their website.
2. Cult Wines stated that they did not guarantee returns to any client and that before an investment, any customer had to engage with a member of their team to ensure they were aware of the potential risks of the investment. They also stated that they provided information across their website to state that they could not offer financial advice and were not authorised or regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority, nor did a consumer have access to protections afforded by the Financial Services Compensation Scheme or the Financial Ombudsman Service.
3. Cult Wines stated that their website included an explanation on every page that stated that past performance was not indicative of future results and that the value of wine investments could go down as well as up.
Assessment
1. Upheld
The CAP Code stated that before distributing or submitting a marketing communication for publication, marketers must hold documentary evidence to prove claims that consumers were likely to regard as objective and that were capable of objective substantiation.
The website stated “if you invested £505,000 two years ago you would have £626,503 today”. The ASA considered that consumers were likely to understand from the claim that had they invested £505,000 two years ago, their investment would be valued at the higher amount at the time they saw the ad. We therefore expected Cult Wines to hold robust evidence to support the objective claim about the current value of the investment.
We acknowledged that Cult Wines had reviewed the illustration and removed it from their website as it did not reflect that the fine wine market was currently in decline. However, because we had not seen evidence to support the claim, we concluded that the advertised rate of return had not been substantiated and was therefore misleading.
On that point, the ad breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1 (Misleading advertising)and 3.7 (Substantiation).
2. Upheld
The CAP Code required that material information should not be omitted and should be presented clearly.
We understood that physical wine investment was currently 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 Cult Wine’s services.
The ad included the text “an asset worth waiting for” and gave an illustration of an investment return by stating that an investment of £505,000 two years ago would be worth £636,503. It therefore was an ad for an investment product. We acknowledged that Cult Wines had told us that their website contained prominent information to highlight that wine investment was not regulated, however, there was no such information in the ad at the time it was seen.
Because the ad did not make clear that wine investment was unregulated, we concluded it was misleading.
On that point, the ad breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1 and 3.3 (Misleading Advertising).
3. Upheld
Section 14 of the CAP Code, which reflected rules prescribed by the 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. In addition, it required that marketing communications for investments should make clear that past performance or experience did not necessarily give a guide for the future. If they were 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.
We acknowledged that Cult Wines said that their website included prominent information to highlight the volatility of wine investments. However, at the time the ad was seen, while information was given to state that “returns are calculated in GBP and results may vary depending on exchange rates”, the ad included no explicit risk warning to make clear that investments could go down as well as up.
In addition, the ad provided an example of a likely investment return – “2 years ago if you invested £505,000 you would have £626,503 today”. Underneath the example the ad stated “Calculation based on the CAGR of the Cult Wine Investment Performance (GBP) since October 2009. The Cult Wine Investment Performance tracks the overall value of our investor’s holdings over time, rebased at the price of purchase. Calculation excludes fees”. We considered therefore that the ad referred to the past performance of fine wine and that the implication from the ad was that it was likely to perform in the same way in the future.
We understood that the investment return example had since been removed from the website and we acknowledged that at the footer of the webpage had been text which stated “Past performance is not indicative of future results”. However, that text was in small print and not immediately visible to consumers who would need to scroll to the bottom of the page to view it. We therefore considered that information was not presented sufficiently clearly to consumers. In addition, we had seen no evidence that the returns figure was a representative one.
Because the ad did not include any risk warning to make clear that investments could go down as well as up, that past performance did not necessarily give a guide for the future and referenced an example of past performance that was not shown to be in any way representative, we concluded that it breached the Code.
On that point, the ad breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules and 14.4 and 14.5 (Financial products).
Action
The ad must not appear again in the form complained of. We told Cult Wines Ltd to ensure they did not present potential returns without adequate evidence to substantiate the claims. We also told them to ensure that future ads made sufficiently clear that wine investment was unregulated and that the value of investments was variable and could go down as well as up. We also told them to make clear that examples of past performance or experience were not necessarily a guide to the future.
