Background
Summary of Council decision:
Two issues were investigated, both of which were Upheld.
Ad description
An ad, seen on Grind’s own website, www.grind.co.uk, on 3 October 2025, included the title “Our pods vs. their pods”. The ad included a comparison of three coffee pods and a picture of each pod. Text describing the first pod stated, “Grind Pods [tick emoji] Free shipping [tick emoji] Home-compostable £13.95 Per month For 30 home-compostable coffee pods, a free refillable tin, and 25% off your first order”. Text describing the second pod stated, “Nespresso Original [cross emoji] Ends up in landfill [cross emoji] Non-compostable £19.50 per month For 50 non-compostable aluminium coffee pods, billions of which end up in landfill yearly”. Text describing the third pod stated, “Nespresso Vertuo Pods [cross emoji] Ends up in landfill [cross emoji] Non-compostable £23.50 Per month For 50 non-compostable aluminium coffee pods, billions of which end up in landfill yearly”.
Issue
Nestle UK Ltd challenged whether the:
- basis of the price comparison, which compared the price of 30 Grind coffee pods with the price of 50 Nespresso pods, was misleading; and
- comparisons between the end-of-life arrangements for the coffee pods were misleading because they omitted that Nespresso pods could be recycled, and misrepresented the extent to which they ended up in landfill.
Response
1. Grind Coffee Roasters Ltd t/a Grind said they did not believe that the price comparison claims were misleading. They understood that the CAP Code required that marketing communications which included a price comparison must not mislead by failing to make the basis of the comparison clear. They said that the number of pods was listed clearly and legibly, directly beneath the price.
The decision to compare 30 Grind pods with 50 Nespresso pods was intentional, because 50 pods was the minimum quantity that could be ordered from the Nespresso website. They had found that the cost of a first purchase could be a barrier to entry and a risk factor for consumers, particularly for a food product they had not tried before. The comparison was intended to show that consumers could start with fewer pods at a lower price.
Grind acknowledged that a comparison between Grind’s subscription price and Nespresso’s one-time prices would be unfair. However, whilst the ad referenced Grind’s subscription price, they said that Nespresso did not offer a subscriber discount, meaning the price was the same whether consumers were making a one-time purchase or as part of a subscription.
Grind added that they had continued to update their website, customer experience and pricing, and as a result, the price comparison with Nespresso in this form had already been removed from their website.
2. Grind did not believe that the comparison claims based on the end-of-life arrangements for the pods were misleading. The intention of the comparison of end-of-life arrangements was to highlight the problem with pod waste and compare it with Grind’s compostable alternative. They made this comparison in two ways: firstly, by stating clearly in the ad that Grind pods were certified home compostable (as well as suitable for industrial composting for food waste); secondly, by stating that Nespresso’s aluminium pods were not home compostable and that, given typical real-life outcomes, and the scale of pod waste, a very large number of aluminium pods each year ended up in landfill rather than being composted or recycled.
They accepted that Nespresso operated a recycling scheme. They said they had sought further clarification from Nespresso about the number of pods placed on the market and the end-of-life arrangements for those pods, but had not received a response. They provided information on how they estimated that billions of aluminium coffee pods made by Nespresso were likely to end up in landfill each year.
They provided supporting evidence from WRAP (Waste and Resources Action programme) regarding the number of coffee pods placed on the market and recycled in the UK.
Assessment
1. Upheld
The CAP Code required that marketing communications that included a price comparison must not mislead by failing to make the basis of the comparison clear.
The ad compared the price “Per month” for Grind coffee pods with Nespresso Original and Nespresso Vertuo coffee pods. We understood that Grind pods could be used with Nespresso Original coffee machines, and vice versa, but that they were not compatible with Nespresso Vertuo machines, nor vice versa. The ASA considered that, in the case of the Nespresso Vertuo pods, because they could not be used in the same coffee machines, the products were not directly comparable with Grind pods and therefore the price comparison between them was misleading.
We next assessed the price comparison between Grind pods and Nespresso Original pods. The ad stated that Grind pods were “£13.95 Per month” and Nespresso Original pods were “£19.50 Per month”. We considered that, because prominence was given to the price points through the large size of font and their positioning directly beneath the image of the respective pods, and because the price was “Per month”, consumers would understand that for an equivalent quantity of coffee, Grind pods were cheaper than the Nespresso pods. However, the quantities being compared were different – 30 Grind pods and 50 Nespresso pods – and therefore the actual price per pod of the Nespresso Original pod was cheaper than the Grind pods (39p vs 47p). We considered that those quantities were presented in a less prominent position in smaller font within a larger body of text beneath, so the fact that the quantities were different was less apparent to consumers.
We also understood that the price presented for Grind pods reflected a discounted subscription price, whereas the price stated for Nespresso pods reflected both their standard one-off purchase price and subscription price, because Nespresso did not offer a discounted subscription price, instead they offered other benefits to subscribers. Grind’s subscription plan for 30 pods could be delivered every one, two or three weeks. Therefore, because Grind pods had to be delivered every three weeks or sooner as part of their subscription plan, we considered it was misleading to present the price as a monthly price. Additionally, Nespresso’s subscription plan, for a minimum of 50 pods, could be delivered every one, two, three or four months. Therefore, because consumers could re-order Nespresso pods when they wanted on a one-off basis for the price stated in the ad, and could have the pods delivered at a frequency of less than monthly as part of a subscription plan, we considered that presenting the cost of Nespresso pods as a “per month” price was also misleading. We therefore considered that the presentation of the prices on a “per month” basis was likely to mislead consumers into believing that the products were being compared on a like-for-like basis, both in terms of quantity and purchasing method, when that was not the case.
We understood that consumers could buy Grind pods in quantities of 30, 60 or 100 coffee pods, and Nespresso Original pods in sleeves of 10, but that there was a minimum order of 50 for the Nespresso pods. We therefore considered that they could have equally compared the price for the same number of pods, namely 60 pods, in order to offer consumers an equivalent comparison. We further noted that the ad did not include a price per unit, or another comparator which might have offered consumers more information on the price comparison. In the absence of such information, we considered that the comparison was presented in a way which misleadingly implied that Grind pods offered better value than Nespresso pods, when that was not the case.
We therefore concluded that the ad did not make the basis of the price comparison sufficiently clear and was misleading.
The ad breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1 (Misleading advertising) and 3.38 (Price comparisons).
2. Upheld
The CAP Code required that comparisons with identifiable competitors must not mislead, or be likely to mislead consumers about either the advertised product or the competing product. 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 ad stated that Grind pods were “home-compostable”. We understood that their pods were certified home-compostable, 100% plastic- and aluminium-free and made only from organic matter (PHA).
The ad also stated the Nespresso Original and Vertuo pods were “Non-compostable”, “Ends up in landfill”, and “billions […] end up in landfill yearly”. We understood that Nespresso pods could not be home composted, however, they could be recycled. Nespresso offered a recycling scheme where customers could request a free recycling bag to fill with their used pods. This could then be recycled using Royal Mail’s home collection or drop-off services, or dropped off at any Nespresso boutique or Podback Recycling Service point. We understood that in the recycling process, the coffee and aluminium were separated: the aluminium was turned into blocks, which could be transformed into something new; the coffee was used to create biogas and soil improver. We therefore considered that because Nespresso coffee pods could be recycled, the claim “Ends up in landfill” gave the impression that landfill was the only end-of-life destination for those pods and was therefore misleading.
We noted that Grind’s evidence to substantiate the claim that “billions” of Nespresso’s pods “ended up in landfill yearly” was based on an estimate of their global sales. However, we had not seen evidence to substantiate that figure and therefore considered in the absence of such evidence, the claim was misleading. Notwithstanding that, we also considered that it was not made clear in the ad that the figure referred to Nespresso’s worldwide rates of landfill disposal, rather than for the UK only. We therefore considered that without a clear qualification, the claim gave a misleading impression about the extent of Nespresso pod waste in the UK.
We concluded that the ad’s comparison with Nespresso pods was misleading because it omitted material information about Nespresso’s recycling scheme, and because Grind did not provide adequate documentary evidence to substantiate the extent to which Nespresso pods ended up in landfill each year.
The ad breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1 (Misleading Advertising), 3.7 (Substantiation) and 3.32 (Comparisons with Identifiable Competitors).
Action
The ad should not appear again in the form complained of. We told Grind Coffee Roasters Ltd t/a Grind to ensure that their future price comparisons were not misleading by failing to make the basis of the price comparison clear. Price comparisons should only be made for directly comparable coffee pods, based on like-for-like quantities or contain an appropriate unit price comparator, and should not present prices as a monthly subscription price if that was not the case. We also told them to ensure they held documentary evidence to prove claims that were capable of objective substantiation, and to not misrepresent their competitor product’s end-of-life arrangements.
