Background
Summary of Council decision:
Two issues were investigated, of which one was Upheld and one was Not upheld.
Ad description
A digital poster for EE, seen on 5 June 2025 and 31 October 2025, stated “MORE PEOPLE ARE CHOOSING EE BROADBAND”. Further text stated “SWITCH TO THE UK’S FASTEST GROWING BROADBAND PROVIDER”. Small text at the foot of the ad stated “To verify see ee.co.uk/claims”.
Issue
Sky UK Ltd and Vodafone Ltd challenged whether the ad was:
1. misleading, because they understood the claims did not take into account customers who had migrated from one brand to another within the BT Group; and
2. verifiable.
Response
1. EE Ltd provided a document that included two tables, which was also available on the verification page of their website. The first table included in the user numbers those BT customers who had switched from BT to EE. EE said the BT customers had either actively chosen to move to EE following marketing communications or had been migrated as part of a software test. They were grouped together in the data under “rotational migrations”. The second table showed the percentage increase in users with the former BT customers excluded. EE said the document originally contained only the first table but had since been updated to add the second table.
EE believed it would not be misleading to include BT customers who had chosen to switch to EE over other providers in the comparison, but pointed out that even when internal brand migrations were removed, they had still gained more customers than any other provider over the period in question. They provided data for the actual change in numbers but requested it remain confidential. By comparison, the nearest competitor’s customers had increased by a lesser amount over the same period, while other major providers had either declined or shown limited growth. In percentage terms, that amounted to 49% growth for EE, as reported in the second table, which excluded BT migrations, compared to 34% for the nearest competitor. EE said they had used a 24-month comparison to reflect the standard length of the vast majority of broadband contracts.
2. EE understood it was long-established practice and consistent with ASA guidance to direct consumers to a web address for verification, provided the nature of the claim was clear. They believed no additional detail was required in the ad itself. They provided information for the verification documents that related to the design of the survey and the methods used to acquire the sales data.
EE said there was no supporting verifiability document for the claims in the ad at the time it first appeared. They had subsequently added a document to the general verification hub on their website, which was accessible via the link in the ad. That verification page linked to several different verification documents. The document was accessible beneath the claim “The UK’s fastest-growing broadband provider” and comprised two tables that detailed broadband users per provider.
A verification document referenced by Vodafone in their complaint was accessible beneath the claim “Why do more people choose EE?”. It contained tables that detailed users per provider. For broadband, customers were grouped by categories entitled “More WFH’ers choose us”, “More students choose us” and “More broadband switchers choose us”. EE said the data in that document supported an old campaign and the claims were no longer being used. They said they had since removed the document from the website.
Assessment
1. Not upheld
The ad stated “MORE PEOPLE ARE CHOOSING EE BROADBAND” and “SWITCH TO THE UK’S FASTEST GROWING BROADBAND PROVIDER”. The ASA considered that consumers were likely to interpret those claims to mean that EE were gaining more broadband customers that had chosen EE than other major UK providers.
We noted Sky’s concern that the figures included customers who had moved from BT, a sister brand within the BT Group, and that the reported growth, by not reflecting only general competitive switching, overstated EE’s market performance. Vodafone reported similar concerns.
We reviewed the figures provided by EE. The comparative data, which also appeared in the verification document relating to “The UK’s fastest-growing broadband provider” on their website, added and then further updated following complaints, showed two tables on broadband customer growth that, in EE’s case, both included and excluded internal migrations from BT. We understood that there were no relevant verification documents available on the webpage at the time the ad was seen by Sky in early June 2025. However, we understood the growth figures in the second table were available to EE at the time the ad was prepared, and so we took those figures into account in our assessment as substantiation for the claim.
The ad did not refer to a time period or describe the nature of the growth. However, the updated verification document stated “EE is the UK’s fastest growing broadband provider based on the total change in the number of broadband users by provider between 2023 and 2025”. Both comparison tables stated “2023–2025”. Source information for the first table specified “TGI GB 2023 February release: (Fieldwork conducted Jan 2022–Dec 2022)” and “TGI GB 2025 February release: (Fieldwork conducted Jan 2024–Dec 2024)”. The second table stated “Growth % Change based on Customer Base (2023–25)” and listed the source for each provider, with further notes that detailed how estimations were calculated for providers whose earnings reports were not publicly available. We understood from EE that the survey results in the first table were based on the most recently released figures at the time the ad was prepared, and that the growth figures for the various providers in the second table were based on financial year reporting up to the end of March 2025.
We understood that the survey data in the first table was based on consumer responses regarding their broadband provider. We considered that self-reported responses about consumers’ current provider were not a sufficiently reliable measure of net customer growth across the market, because they did not show actual subscriber gains and losses between providers. In addition, the survey did not separate out internal BT Group migrations. We therefore considered that the survey data was insufficient to substantiate the claims.
The growth figures in the second table were expressed only in percentage form, but we also had access to figures that showed the actual change in numbers during that time period. We understood that for the first part of the 24-month comparison period a competitor was growing at a higher rate than EE, but that the percentage growth, and confidential customer numbers, represented the growth EE had experienced when the entire two-year period was taken into account.
We noted a significant proportion of EE’s overall growth had come from within the BT Group. However, we understood from the confidential figures provided by EE that the vast majority of those customers who switched from BT had chosen to do so following marketing communications from them. In addition, we understood from EE’s own sales data that, even when internal migrations were excluded, EE had still gained more broadband customers than any other major UK provider.
Because Vodafone saw the ad in October 2025, we also considered whether the claims “fastest growing” and “more people are choosing [...]” remained supported at that time. While the verification documents referred to data up to March 2025, we also reviewed confidential sales data provided by EE which extended beyond that period and included October 2025. We considered that the evidence continued to support the claims.
Because we had seen evidence to substantiate that EE had achieved the highest customer growth including when internal movements were excluded, we considered that the ad was unlikely to mislead on the basis that former BT customers had not been taken into account.
On that point, we investigated the ad under CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1 (Misleading advertising), 3.7 (Substantiation), and 3.32 (Comparisons with identifiable competitors), but did not find it in breach.
2. Upheld
The CAP Code required that comparisons with identifiable competitors were verifiable. That meant that an ad which featured a comparison with an identifiable competitor or competitors needed to include, or direct consumers to, sufficient information to allow them to understand the comparison, and be able to check the claims were accurate. We considered that consumers were likely to interpret those claims to mean that EE were gaining more broadband customers that had chosen EE than other major UK providers. We also considered that consumers who were considering broadband providers would have sufficient knowledge of the market to be able to identify EE’s competitors. The claims therefore referred to identifiable competitors.
The ad included the text “To verify see ee.co.uk/claims”. The URL linked to a page where consumers could access documents that contained comparative data. At the time Sky saw the ad, there were no documents that related to the claims in the ad, and therefore no means by which to verify the claim. Shortly afterwards, a document relating to the claim “The UK’s fastest-growing broadband provider” was uploaded. It contained a table entitled “Total change in number of broadband users by provider (TGI data)” and further text explained that the data was sourced from a survey of UK adults. That table did not specify that the figures from the survey included BT-to-EE migrations. The verification data had not been updated to cover subsequent months in which the ad continued to appear.
The document was later updated to include a second table, entitled “Additional information”, which expressed the growth as a percentage change of the customer base. Unlike the first table, which relied on survey data, it was based on sales data. The second table detailed the source for each provider’s data and for EE it additionally stated “Excluding BT Group rotational migration”. The growth figures appeared as a percentage change and consumers did not therefore have access to the underlying subscriber figures for each provider, on which the verification document stated the claim was based, for the table that excluded former BT customers.
We considered that the distinction between those who switched from within the BT group and external switching was key information for consumers who might wish to find out more about the claim “More people are choosing EE Broadband”. That information was not available from the first table, which referred to survey data alone, as it was based on self-reported consumer responses and did not separate out internal migrations. We considered that the verification information provided from the survey alone, before the document was updated, was insufficient to allow consumers or competitors to understand the nature of the comparison and to check that the claims were accurate.
We noted another document, referenced by Vodafone, appeared under the claim “Why do more people choose EE?”. It contained data from a Kantar survey from 2022–23. We acknowledged that EE had since removed the document and had not intended it as substantiation for the claims in the ad. However, the document was accessible from the verification page linked to in the ad and appeared beneath the claim “Why do more people choose EE”. We therefore considered that consumers who were looking for verification for the claim “More people are choosing EE broadband” might consult that document, notwithstanding the presence of a more relevant document elsewhere on the page under the claim “The UK’s fastest-growing broadband provider”.
We further considered that the documents were accessible only by significant scrolling and navigation of lists of claims on the verification page linked to from the ad. We considered that was likely to cause confusion to consumers because there was not a clear route for them to verify the claims in the ad.
Because the ad initially did not link to any relevant verification information, and the document that was later added initially contained insufficient information to understand the nature of the comparison, and because the verification page contained an additional outdated document and did not provide a clear route to verify the claims, we concluded that the ad did not meet the requirements for verifiability.
On that point, the ad breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rule 3.34 (Comparisons with identifiable competitors).
Action
We told EE Ltd to ensure that their comparative claims were verifiable.
