Ad description
A paid-for Facebook ad for Currys, seen on 10 May 2025, featured a video that opened with a cropped shot of an individual’s head and shoulders with their hair blowing back and them holding handlebars. The sound of an engine could be heard in the background. A wider shot revealed that the individual was on a stationary e-scooter in a shop setting. Two other individuals were shown. One moving the e-scooter and the other holding a fan towards the person on the e-scooter. All three then said, “Currys sells what now?” The video ended by displaying an image of the website listing for an e-scooter. An accompanying tagline at the top of the ad stated “imagine pulling up on this! E-scooters available at Currys” and was displayed throughout.
Issue
The complainant, who understood it was illegal to ride privately owned electric scooters in public places, challenged whether the ad was:
- misleading; and
- irresponsible.
Response
Currys Group Ltd t/a Currys said the ad was filmed inside one of their stores and therefore, they believed, the ad complied with the Department for Transport’s guidance that e-scooters could only be used on private land with the landowner’s permission. They said the ad was no longer being used.
Currys said the ad was comedic and exaggerated in tone, with the main character not actually riding the e-scooter. They explained that the caption “imagine pulling up on this” was intended to be ironic and to fit within that fictional context, rather than to imply that e-scooters could be used on public roads.
Assessment
1. Upheld
The Department for Transport’s guidance (2020) on powered transporters, an umbrella term that included electric scooters, stated that electric scooters (e-scooters) could only be used on private land, to which the general public did not have access, with the permission of the landowner. Although there were currently some very limited exceptions of use in public areas that related to rental (as opposed to privately owned) e-scooters only, the ASA understood that the use of e-scooters outside of those circumstances was illegal.
The ad opened with a shot of an individual gripping handlebars, their hair moving and an engine sound in the background. A wider shot then revealed the vehicle was an e-scooter which was stationary in a Curry’s store. The caption which stated “imagine pulling up on this” was displayed prominently throughout the ad.
We considered that, despite the increasing popularity of e-scooters, consumers would not necessarily be aware of the legality of using them, and that consumers were likely to understand from the ad, in the absence of any clarifying information, that they would be able to use e-scooters in public. In addition, the phrase “pulling up” would be widely understood by consumers as a slang expression to mean ‘arrive somewhere’. While we acknowledged the ad was set in a Currys store, and that was likely to be clear to consumers, we considered the use of the phrase “imagine pulling up on this”, combined with imagery of an individual imagining they were ‘riding the e-scooter’, suggested the vehicle was something a consumer might use to arrive ‘in style’ somewhere, and by extension, that meant in a public setting. We therefore considered the use of the phrase was likely to reinforce, rather than dispel, the impression that the product could be used in public.
While we acknowledged the ad did not show the e-scooter ridden in a public place, there was no accompanying disclaimer or clarification about the legal restrictions on their use. In the absence of any reference to the fact that e-scooters could only be used on private land with the landowner’s permission, we considered that the ad omitted material information that was likely to influence consumers’ understanding of how and where the product could be used.
Because consumers were likely to understand from the ad that e-scooters could be used to arrive at public locations, and because it omitted information about the legal restrictions on their use, we concluded that it was misleading.
On that point, the ad breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1, 3.3 and 3.9 (Misleading advertising).
2. Upheld
As above, we understood that the use of e-scooters in public places, other than in limited circumstances, was illegal.
We also considered, as above, that consumers were likely to understand from that ad that they could use the e-scooter to travel to and arrive at public places using public roads. Therefore, consumers would understand that it was legal to use them in that way. That impression was not corrected or qualified in any way, and there was no accompanying information to indicate that the use of privately owned e-scooters was restricted to private land with the landowner’s permission.
Because the ad presented e-scooters in a way that implied they could be used like other motorised vehicles on public roads, and because it omitted significant information about legal limitations, we considered that it condoned behaviour that was likely to be unlawful. We therefore concluded the ad was socially irresponsible.
On that point, the ad breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rule 1.3 (Social responsibility).
Action
The ad must not appear again in the form complained of. We told Currys Group Ltd t/a Currys to ensure future ads did not mislead and were not socially irresponsible by implying they could be ridden on public roads when that is not the case.
