Ad description
A paid-for search ad for trustedguide.org, seen in January 2026. The ad featured the heading “TOP 5 Vacuum Cleaners 2025 – TOP5 Best Vacuum Cleaners 2025”. Further text stated “Explore Our Top 5 Vacuum Cleaners For 2025 – Fully Tested And Reviewed For UK Homes. See Expert-Tested Vacuums For 2025 And Find The Perfect Match For Your…”.
Issue
The ASA challenged whether the ad falsely implied that the marketer was acting for purposes outside its business and did not make their commercial intent clear.
Response
Dollead Technology Ltd t/a trustedguide.org did not respond to the ASA’s enquiries.
Assessment
Upheld
The ASA was concerned by Dollead Technology’s lack of response and apparent disregard for the Code, which was a breach of CAP Code (Edition 12) 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.
The CAP Code prohibited marketers from implying that they were acting for purposes outside their trade, business, craft or profession. It also required that ads must make their commercial intent clear.
The ad was for the website trustedguide.org and included the text “TOP 5 Vacuum Cleaners 2025 […] Explore Our Top 5 Vacuum Cleaners For 2025 – Fully Tested And Reviewed For UK Homes. See Expert-Tested Vacuums For 2025”. We considered that consumers would understand from the ad that trustedguide.org was an independent organisation that provided unbiased reviews and advice to consumers on the best vacuum cleaner products. This impression was reinforced by the reference to “Expert-Tested Vacuums”, which implied that trustedguide.org used experts to conduct their own independent testing in order to be able to give the most accurate recommendations to consumers.
However, we understood that the landing page for the ad, whilst claiming to review five vacuum cleaners, only offered links to purchase one of the products, a generic vacuum cleaner which had been awarded a very high rating, and which we understood was likely to be a dropshipped product. We understood that dropshipping was an e-commerce business model in which the advertiser did not stock the product themselves; when a purchase was made, the advertiser requested the manufacturer send the product directly to the buyer. This sometimes resulted in long delivery times or difficulty for consumers attempting to return the product. Whilst the advert claimed that trustedguide.org offered reviews based on expert testing, we had not seen any information to suggest that was the case. We understood that the website was intended to encourage consumers to purchase a specific product.
Because the ad presented trustedguide.org as an independent review website when we understood that was not the case, we concluded it did not make the commercial intent clear and falsely implied that Dollead Technology Ltd was acting for purposes outside its business.
The ad breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 2.3 (Recognition of marketing communications) and 3.1 (Misleading advertising).
Action
The ad must not appear again in its current form. We told Dollead Technology Ltd t/a trustedguide.org to ensure their ads made their commercial intent clear and did not falsely claim or imply they were acting for purposes outside their trade, for example, by presenting websites used for marketing purposes as independent review sites in paid-for ads. We referred the matter to CAP’s Compliance team.
