Ad description
Three paid-for Google search ads for Trustworthy Reviews, an online reviewer of food supplements, and the Trustworthy Reviews website www.trustworthy-reviews.com, seen on 20 April 2022:
a. The first paid-for search ad appeared under the search term “best turmeric supplement uk” and stated “Best Turmeric of 2021 Ranked – Which Work Which to Avoid. We reviewed the Top 3. Learn How To Get The Most Out Of Turmeric Supplements. […]”. The ad linked to a page titled “The Most Effective Turmeric Supplements in 2021” on the Trustworthy Reviews website.
b. The second paid-for search ad appeared under the search term “best ashwagandha” and stated “Best Ashwagandha of 2021 Ranked – Which Work Which To Avoid. We Reviewed the Top 5. Learn How To Get The Most Out Of Ashwagandha Supplements […] 50 + Expert Reviews. Research Driven. Trusted Source”. The ad featured a five star Google review logo with text that stated “Rating for trustworthy-reviews.com: 5.0 – 37 reviews”. The ad linked to a page titled “Top 5 Ashwagandha Supplements in 2021” on the Trustworthy Reviews website.
c. The third paid-for search ad appeared under the search term “best vitamin d” and stated “Best Vitamin D3 Supplements – Which Work Which To Avoid. We Reviewed the Top 5. Learn How To Get The Most Out Of Vitamin D3 Supplements […]”.The ad linked to a page titled “The 5 Best Vitamin D Supplements in 2021” on the Trustworthy Reviews website.
d. The top of the pages on the Trustworthy Reviews website for “The Most Effective Turmeric Supplements in 2021”, “Top 5 Ashwagandha Supplements in 2021” and “The 5 Best Vitamin D Supplements in 2021”, linked to from ads (a) to (c), featured a small banner that stated “ADVERTISEMENT”. Underneath, there was a thumbnail image of a woman identified as “Linda”, with an email address. Further text described “Linda” as the site’s “resident health and nutrition editor”, and a “health and nutrition enthusiast” who “spends her time researching scientific studies […] to provide top nutrition tips”.
Each page then provided information about the supplement type referred to in the search ads, including advice on how to choose between the range of products on the market. A section titled “What Should I Look For” discussed factors such as ingredients, potency, efficacy and customer service. Another section titled “What Should I Avoid” included text that stated “Beware of online reviews” above further text warning website visitors about the prevalence of fake positive reviews for food supplements.
The pages featured a “top 5” list of the “best” supplements. Each page displayed a HeyNutrition product in the top-ranked spot with an “A+ Overall Grade” and accompanied a “TOTAL RANKING” of 9.7 out of ten, based on several hundred votes. Each of the five products was scored out of ten on “Ingredient Safety”, “Projected Effectiveness”, “Value”, “Return Policy”, and “Customer Satisfaction”. On each page, underneath a heading that stated “THE BOTTOM LINE”, further text explained that the decision to place each HeyNutrition product in the top spot had been reached via consideration of their formulation, quality of ingredients, reasonable price, and the brand’s “60-day money-back guarantee on all purchases”. The page relating to Vitamin D products, linked to from ad (c), also stated “out of all the other products we have reviewed, HeyNutrition has the most 5* reviews on TrustPilot, a trusted source for reviews”. The pages then included a link that stated “Shop Now >>” that directed website visitors to the listing of each product on the HeyNutrition website.
Text at the bottom of each page stated “This is an advertisement and not an actual news article, blog, or consumer protection update […] MARKETING DISCLOSURE: This website is a marketplace. As such you should know that the owner has a monetary connection to the product and services advertised on the site. The owner receives payment whenever a qualified lead is referred but that is the extent of it. This website is owned and operated by the same company that has ownership interest in certain products featured on this website. ADVERTISING DISCLOSURE: This website and the products & services referred to on the site are advertising marketplaces. This website is an advertisement and not a news publication. Any photographs of persons used on this site are models. The owner of this site and of the products and services referred to on this site only provides a service where consumers can obtain and compare.” Text that stated “Advertising Disclaimer” on the page’s footer linked website visitors to another page with similar text, including “[Trustworthy Reviews] benefit and receive commission from the sale of certain products featured on this website”.
Issue
The ASA challenged whether the ads falsely implied that the marketer was acting for purposes outside its business and did not make their commercial intent clear.Response
HeyNutrition Ltd t/a Trustworthy Reviews (HeyNutrition) confirmed that they owned and operated the Trustworthy Reviews website and had placed the paid-for search ads that linked to it. They highlighted the banner on each review page that stated “ADVERTISEMENT”, as well as the text at the bottom of each page that included “This is an advertisement”, and the text that stated “Advertising Disclaimer” that linked visitors to another page with similar text. Because they thought that those elements clearly identified the website pages as ads and signalled that their owner had a commercial interest in the sale of featured products, they believed that consumers would understand that the reviews were not editorial content produced by an independent reviews website. They added that they had ensured that all paid-for search ads for the website were labelled with “Ad”, and on that basis, believed that the commercial intent of ads (a) to (c) was sufficiently clear.
However, after a further review of the review pages on their website in May 2022, they decided to enlarge and revise the text at the bottom of each page so that it explicitly disclosed that Trustworthy Reviews and HeyNutrition had the same beneficial owners. Additional text was also added at the top of each page to explain that the website’s owner “may receive a commission from the sale […] of certain products featured”. They believed that would make the website’s commercial intent clear before consumers engaged with the ad.
Assessment
Upheld
The CAP Code stated that marketing communications must not falsely claim or imply that the marketer was acting for purposes outside its trade, business, craft or profession. It further stated that marketing communications must make clear their commercial intent if that was not obvious from the context.
The ASA considered that the paid-for Google search ads, (a) to (c), were placed under search terms that would frequently be used by consumers who, while generally interested in buying turmeric, ashwagandha, or vitamin D supplements, were looking for specific product recommendations from an authoritative source. We considered the name “Trustworthy Reviews” gave the impression that the website provided reliable independent reviews and considered that consumers would not expect the website to be owned and operated by a brand whose products it featured.
Additionally, ads (a) to (c) included claims that Trustworthy Reviews had “reviewed” or “ranked” the “best” supplement products available, and included text that stated “Which Work Which To Avoid” and “Learn How To Get The Most Out Of [supplement type relevant to search term]”. We considered those claims reinforced the impression created by the name Trustworthy Reviews by alluding to product testing, and by suggesting the site aimed to promote informed consumer choice. In the case of ad (b), we further considered that consumers would interpret the additional text “50 + Expert Reviews. Research Driven. Trusted Source” as implying that the site’s content was grounded in scientific research, product testing, and independent expertise.
We acknowledged that ads (a) to (c) featured the ad label characteristic of all paid-for Google search ads. However, we considered that, in the context of the text they featured, consumers were likely to interpret them as ads promoting a genuine, independent reviews website. On that basis, we considered that labels for ads (a) to (c) did little to inform consumers that the advertiser had a commercial interest in the sale of HeyNutrition products.
We considered that consumers who clicked on ads (a) to (c) would therefore land on the linked review pages under the impression they were visiting a website that provided unbiased, objective comparisons between a range of supplement products based on independent expert opinion and product testing. The review pages themselves featured detailed, non-product-specific introductions that included scientific language and contextual information, an author profile, and general discussion of the health benefits of each supplement type. We considered that those elements positioned the page as an independent educational resource or buyer’s guide. Furthermore, various other aspects of the review pages, including the “top 5” lists’ numerical ratings of featured products across various criteria, and the claimed numbers of “Votes”, gave the impression that the reviews, and the lists’ ordering, reflected the results of genuine research and product testing, as well as customer surveys. However, we understood that was not the case, and HeyNutrition Ltd did not provide any evidence to support that it was.
The Trustworthy Reviews website was in fact owned and operated by HeyNutrition Ltd, a food supplement company. Every review page on the Trustworthy Reviews website placed a HeyNutrition product in the number one spot of a “Top 5” list and gave comparatively negative reviews to competitors’ products. Underneath each review of the top ranked HeyNutrition product, a link directed visitors to the HeyNutrition website, with the purpose of increasing traffic on the HeyNutrition website.
We considered that the measures the advertiser had taken in an attempt to make the website’s commercial intent clear, including the small print, additional “Advertising Disclaimer” and ad labels, were insufficient to counter the overall effect of the site’s content, layout and name, and gave the false impression that Trustworthy Reviews was an independent reviews website.
Because the ads all presented Trustworthy Reviews as an independent reviews website, when that was not the case, we concluded that they did not make their commercial intent clear and falsely implied that HeyNutrition Ltd was acting for purposes outside its business.
Ads (a), (b), (c), and (d) breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 2.1 2.1 Marketing communications must be obviously identifiable as such. 2.3 2.3 Marketing communications must not falsely claim or imply that the marketer is acting as a consumer or for purposes outside its trade, business, craft or profession; marketing communications must make clear their commercial intent, if that is not obvious from the context. (Recognition of marketing communications), 3.1 3.1 Marketing communications must not materially mislead or be likely to do so. (Misleading advertising) and 3.9 3.9 Marketing communications must state significant limitations and qualifications. Qualifications may clarify but must not contradict the claims that they qualify. (Qualification).
Action
The ads must not appear again in their current form. We told HeyNutrition Ltd t/a Trustworthy Reviews 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 over which they had control as independent review websites, including in paid-for search ads.
