Background
This Ruling forms part of a wider piece of work on ads relating to group action litigation, identified for investigation following complaints received and intelligence gathered by the ASA. See also related rulings published on 24 September 2025.
On 7 April 2025, the Advertising Codes were updated to reflect the revocation and restatement of the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 (CPRs – the legislation from which the majority of the CAP and BCAP rules on misleading advertising derived) by the Unfair Commercial Practices provisions in the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024 (DMCCA). On that date, the wording of a number of the rules in the Advertising Codes was changed to reflect relevant changes introduced by the DMCCA on 6 April 2025.
Given that the complaint that formed the subject of this Ruling was received before 7 April 2025, the ASA considered the ad and complaint under the wording of the rules that existed prior to 7 April 2025, and the Ruling (and references to rules within it) should therefore be read in line with this wording, available here – CAP Code and BCAP Code.
Summary of Council decision:
Three issues were investigated, all of which were Upheld.
Ad description
A Google paid-for search ad, paid-for Facebook ad, and website for Johnson Law Group, relating to group action compensation claims by diesel vehicle owners and lessees, seen on 12 June 2024:
a. The Google sponsored search ad stated “Enter reg number: To claim – Diesel Emissions Claim U.K. Diesel drivers may be owed up [sic] £10,000. Enter Reg into our Checker to see if you can claim. If you’re a diesel car owner, you may be owed money. Use your vehicle reg number to check. Do You Qualify? Verify using your Reg # No Upfront Cost. No Win No Fee. Free Evaluation.”
Clicking on the ad took consumers to ad (c).
b. The paid-for Facebook ad featured the caption “Drive a Diesel? 2008-2020? Enter your Vehicle Reg to see if you can claim up to £10k!”. In a video, a man stated, “Do you own or lease a diesel vehicle from 2008 to 2020? There’s a chance for you to claim up to £10,000 in compensation. Just grab your car’s registration number, head over to dieselcheck.com and boom, instantly find out if you’re eligible to claim those thousands.”
The ad linked to ad (c).
c. The landing page on the Johnson Law Group website, www.johnsonlawgroup.co.uk, was divided into two sections. The top section was headed “You could claim up to £10,000 if you owned or leased a diesel vehicle manufactured between 2008 to 2020”. Text in a box stated “Diesel Emissions Compensation Claim Enter your registration number to see if you’re eligible”, with a button labelled “NEXT”.
Website visitors who entered an eligible registration number and clicked “NEXT” were presented with a new box displaying basic vehicle information and asked to confirm whether it was their vehicle. Clicking “Yes” brought up a new box with the text “GREAT NEWS! We believe you may have a claim which could be worth £1,000’s! Please tell us when you first registered your vehicle, date of birth and e-sign below to generate your personalised Client Care Pack. This allows our dedicated team to start work on your claim immediately”. Underneath the ‘e-sign’ box, small text included “Signed with an intention to enter into a legally binding contract. Additionally, by signing this agreement you are consenting to JLG carrying out a soft credit search to verify your information and support your claim.”
The bottom section of the landing page was displayed beneath the different boxes that appeared in the top section as described above. The section was headed “Diesel Emissions Compensation Claim FAQ” and was followed by six questions, with the answers in drop-down sections. The answer to the question “How much is this claim worth?” stated “Johnson Law Group is seeking the maximum compensation allowed for each claim. The actual values could range from a hundred up to £10,000 or even the value of the purchase or lease.”
The answer to the question “How much do we charge?” stated “We operate under a No Win No Fee Agreement, meaning you will not have to pay anything if we do not win your case. If you win then you will pay us a proportion of your damages which will be no more than 50% of your damages inclusive of VAT plus the cost of any legal expenses insurance cover which we anticipate should be no more than £70.”
The answer to the question “Will I owe any money if the claim is lost?” stated “No, you will not have to pay anything if the claim is lost. We offer all of our clients at the Johnson Law Group a fully insured ‘No Win No Fee’ arrangement which means that, provided you follow the terms of our agreement, you will never be worse off for having instructed us.”
Issue
The ASA received a complaint from Fair Civil Justice (FCJ), an organisation funded primarily by industry, which said it was campaigning to promote faster, fairer alternatives to litigation in the UK. FCJ complained in relation to ad (c). The ASA additionally identified ads (a) and (b).
- FCJ challenged whether ad (c) was misleading, because it did not make clear that by providing their details and ‘e-signing’ consumers were signing a legally binding contract to join the group action.
- The ASA challenged whether ads (a) and (b), and FCJ challenged whether ad (c), were misleading, because they did not make clear the fees, costs or other charges associated with joining the group action claim; and
- The ASA challenged whether the claims in ads (a) and (b), and FCJ challenged whether the claims in ad (c), that claimants could be compensated with “up to £10,000” and “£1,000’s” were misleading and could be substantiated.
Response
1. JLG Legal Ltd t/a Johnson Law Group said the caption “Signed with an intention to enter into a legally binding contract” made very clear that a prospective client was entering into a contract with them. They said it was considered best practice to use that statement. Consumers understood that by signing a physical contract they intended to be bound by its terms. In contrast, because e-signatures were still relatively new, it was considered appropriate to spell out in no uncertain terms the nature of what the client was entering into.
They used the phrasing “intention to enter” for two reasons. Firstly, to convey to potential clients that unless they signed electronically they would not be bound to the terms of a contract. Secondly, they sought to replicate one aspect of the legal test for the formation of a contract, which was the intention to create legal relations.
They said that all the charging terms were set out in the contract examples and explanation sheet, which website visitors were asked to check before e-signing. They also adequately explained how the Solicitors Regulation Authority fee cap worked and required clients to tick a box to confirm they acknowledged that information before proceeding. Potential clients could email or call for direct assistance prior to signing. Additionally, all clients were emailed within days of entering into an agreement. That email not only reiterated the terms of the contract but also their right to cancel within 14 days.
They said it was undoubtedly the case that some clients agreed to the terms of their retainer without reading any of the documentation. However, it was also undoubtedly the case that many did read the documentation; they frequently received queries from potential clients including about adverse costs, timescales and the level of individual claimant participation.
2. Johnson Law Group said the term “no win no fee” was ubiquitous as the consumer-facing, simple term to describe conditional fee arrangements (CFAs) and damages-based agreements (DBAs). In their experience, consumers focused on the term’s indication that they would not have to pay anything if they lost. In their mind the word ‘fee’ was equivalent to ‘payment’, and they were willing to give up part of their compensation if they won as the price for the protection of not having to make any payment if they lost. They often would not sign up until they were comfortable with the perceived risks. However, in practice the risks were extremely low given the way Johnson Law Group structured the financing of their clients’ claims.
Johnson Law Group said the webpage’s presentation of contractual documentation and summary information was specifically structured to inform clients of relevant information prior to them entering a contract, without doing so in an overwhelming way.
The nature of no-win no-fee litigation was such that, because the fee the client paid was entirely dependent on the outcome of a case, it was impossible to set out with any accuracy what that fee was likely to be. They believed the primary piece of material information relevant to clients was the percentage that would be deducted from a clients’ compensation as payment. Their website made very clear, in a number of places, that clients paid 50% of the damages they recovered to Johnson Law Group. The ad also set out that the only charge was an insurance premium that protected the client from adverse legal costs; the website provided their best estimate of the likely cost of that. While that information was set out in the drop-down FAQs, below the eligibility checker, they considered that was the logical place to put that information. If someone checked and their vehicle was not eligible there was no reason for them to carry on with the registration process. Conversely, once eligibility was confirmed they provided more information about the case and their charges.
They said that, before signing the contract, prospective clients had the opportunity to click on the contractual documentation they were agreeing to. They also had the opportunity to click on a summary of how Johnson Law Group’s DBA worked. That not only set out in very simple terms Johnson Law Group’s charge-out rates, but also emphasised the need to co-operate and provide instructions when required. That therefore underlined the importance and formality of the agreement the client was entering into.
They confirmed there were no scenarios where, if they did not win the litigation, clients would be out of pocket. All clients were fully insured against losing the case and incurring any related liabilities. The insurance also covered the client’s financial liability in the event that Johnson Law Group terminated the retainer on the grounds that they no longer considered there was merit in continuing the claim. While a client was liable for fees and costs in the event that the client terminated the retainer after the statutory 14-day ‘cooling off’ period, that was standard for all contracts across many different sectors. They said those scenarios were explained to clients in the contract, and immediately after they e-signed in a one-page document.
3. They said the amount of compensation to which claimants could be entitled, as referenced in the ad, was a realistic estimate. There had only been one previous case of the same kind settled in the UK, and while that related to a different manufacturer there was no reason to suggest that claims against different manufacturers would have different or lower claim values. They provided some further detail but considered that the information that would substantiate the claim was commercially sensitive.
Additionally, they considered it was not misleading to reference the compensation figure clients may be awarded, rather than a figure that took into account the fee Johnson Law Group charged. That was because there were many financial variables that could apply to a no-win no-fee agreement. For example, in some circumstances under a DBA, no deductions would be made from a client’s compensation. They believed the information provided about their fees in the FAQs section was sufficient.
Assessment
1. Upheld
The ASA acknowledged that in ad (c), underneath the box where consumers entered their e-signature, text included “Signed with an intention to enter into a legally binding contract”. However, while that statement was in bold text, it was in a small font which made it less prominent than the text preceding it and could therefore be overlooked by consumers. We also considered that those consumers who did note the statement were unlikely to interpret the wording “intention to enter” to mean that the act of e-signing immediately entered them into a contractual commitment.
Furthermore, that statement was the first and only reference to a “contract”, and there were no references to the alternate term “retainer”. Instead, at the top of the page, consumers were asked to “[…] e-sign below to generate your personalised Client Care Pack”, and a hyperlink directly above the statement was labelled “Summary & Example Client Care Pack”. We considered consumers would not expect that a document described as a “Client Care Pack” was a contract. Additionally, while the example Client Care Pack included terms and conditions to the contract, because the hyperlink to it was positioned below the e-signature box, it could be overlooked. Consequently, consumers were likely to e-sign without understanding that by doing so they were signing a legally binding contract. They were also likely to e-sign without reviewing the contract and all its terms.
We concluded that the ad did not make clear that by e-signing, consumers were signing a legally binding contract, and it was therefore misleading.
On that point, ad (c) breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1 and 3.3 (Misleading advertising).
2. Upheld
The CAP Code required that marketing communications must not mislead the consumer by omitting material information, including by hiding it or presenting it in an unclear, ambiguous or untimely manner. Material information was information that the consumer needed to make informed decisions in relation to a product.
The paid-for Google search ad (a) repeated in different wording in the heading and body copy that drivers of diesel vehicles may be eligible to make a compensation claim, and that this could be done on the basis of “No Upfront Cost. No Win No Fee. Free Evaluation”. We considered consumers would understand those claims to mean that, if eligible for a compensation claim, they would not have to pay anything to join the litigation, that they would be required to pay a fee (but no other costs) if the claim was successful, and that no fee or other costs would be payable if the claim was unsuccessful.
The Google ad also stated that the compensation amount could be “up to £10,000”. While the paid-for Facebook ad (b) did not include claims referencing costs or fees, it did reference compensation. It emphasised the amount of compensation that could be awarded, in both the caption and video, including “There’s a chance for you to claim up to £10,000 in compensation […] instantly find out if you’re eligible to claim those thousands”. We considered consumers would understand from both ads (a) and (b) that, if eligible, they may be due £10,000 in compensation, or several thousands of pounds at the least.
Ads (a) and (b) invited consumers to investigate further by clicking through to a landing page, ad (c). Consumers would therefore arrive at that page from ad (a) with the understanding of the claims “No Upfront Cost. No Win No Fee. Free Evaluation” and the references to compensation amounts set out above; and from ad (b) with the understanding of the references to compensation amounts set out above. The claim that consumers could claim up to £10,000 was repeated at the top of ad (c), which reinforced that message. A box directly underneath invited website visitors to check their eligibility by providing their vehicle registration number. After doing so, that section of the webpage refreshed to request further information and then presented the e-signature box.
We understood that if the claim was won, Johnson Law Group deducted a fee of up to 50% (including VAT) of the compensation awarded, which included all their expenses and costs, plus the cost of insurance, which was up to £70. That insurance was expected to cover the costs of the litigation if it was unsuccessful. We considered that when presented with claims about fees and costs such as “No Win No Fee” and “No Upfront Cost”, or with claims about potential compensation amounts, the fee and how it was calculated was material information that the consumer needed to make informed decisions in relation to the product.
We also understood that Johnson Law Group’s contract allowed that clients may be liable for costs, in circumstances we considered they would not reasonably expect. While we considered clients who withdrew from the contract were likely to expect to be liable for any fees or expenses for work already carried out, the contract stated that if they went on to win their claim, whether acting alone or with different lawyers, and the compensation amount exceeded what they had already paid Johnson Law Group, they would be liable to pay the firm any remaining amount up to 50% of the compensation amount. We considered that when presented with claims about fees and costs, or with claims about potential compensation amounts, the fact that consumers may be liable for costs in some circumstances was material information that the consumer needed in order to make informed decisions in relation to the product.
Because the paid-for Google and Facebook ads only invited consumers to find out more, we considered it was not necessary for the material information to be included in those ads. However, in order to ensure that consumers were provided with material information in a clear and timely manner, it must be provided before they made a decision in relation to the product. We considered it was therefore necessary that it be provided either in ads (a) and (b), or on the landing page to which they linked, ad (c), in a clear and timely manner.
The form on the landing page where consumers provided their personal information, and, having done so, used the e-sign box to sign up to the litigation, was at the top of the landing page. Underneath, a series of ‘FAQs’ included “How much do we charge?” and “Will I owe money if the claim is lost?”; website visitors clicked on the questions to reveal the answers in drop-down boxes. The answers set out Johnson Law Group’s fees and how they were calculated, the insurance cost, and that clients would not have to pay anything if the claim was unsuccessful. Because that information was presented in drop-down boxes, underneath the section where consumers were invited to provide information to check their eligibility to join the claim, we considered it was likely to be overlooked by a significant proportion of consumers. As such it was not sufficiently prominent to ensure that consumers had that information before making a decision in relation to the product. The FAQs also did not include any information that consumers may be liable for costs in some circumstances. We further noted that, as referenced at Point 1, ad (c) invited consumers to sign a legally binding agreement when a significant proportion were likely to e-sign without having seen a copy of the contract and its terms relating to fees, costs and liabilities.
We concluded that the paid-for Google search ad (a) and the landing page to which it linked, ad (c), together did not present material information about the fee and how it was calculated, and that consumers may be liable for costs in some circumstances, in a clear and timely manner.
We also concluded that the paid-for Facebook ad (b) and the landing page to which it linked, ad (c), together did not present material information about the fee and how it was calculated, and that consumers may be liable for costs in some circumstances, in a clear and timely manner.
We therefore concluded that ad (a) and ad (c) taken together, and ad (b) and ad (c) taken together, omitted material information and therefore breached the Code.
On that point, ads (a), (b) taken together, and ad (a) and (c) taken together breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1, 3.3 (Misleading advertising), and 3.9 (Qualification).
3. Upheld
All three ads were directed generally to consumers who had owned or driven diesel vehicles between 2008 and 2020. The ads did not reference any specific diesel car brands or manufacturers against which Johnson Law Group was conducting litigation.
Ads (a) and (b) included claims that claimants may receive up to £10,000 in compensation. It was also stated at the top of the landing page from those ads, ad (c). We considered consumers would understand from the wording “up to” that the amount awarded to claimants may vary based on individual circumstances. However, they would expect it was likely that a significant proportion of claimants who drove or owned any brand of diesel vehicle between 2008 and 2020 would receive £10,000 and the remainder would receive several thousands. In the absence of specific information to indicate otherwise, they would understand this was the full amount they would receive ‘in pocket’ at the end of the claim process.
Ad (c), the landing page, included the drop-down FAQ “How much is this claim worth?” which stated that the “actual values could range from a hundred up to £10,000 or even the value of the purchase or lease”. That wording made clear that compensation amounts could be significantly less – or more – than £10,000, but did not indicate any factors which could affect the amount awarded. Additionally, the drop-down FAQ “How much do we charge?” stated that clients would pay “a proportion of your damages which will be no more than 50% of your damages”. That wording made clear that Johnson Law Group’s fee would be deducted from the compensation awarded to clients. However, as referenced above, those statements may be overlooked due to their placement on the webpage. Further, we considered those statements were not sufficient to counteract the understanding consumers would already have taken from the prominent “up to £10,000” claims in ad (c), and ad (a) or (b).
We understood that a key factor in calculating the compensation amount awarded to individual claimants would be the purchase price, or lease costs, of the relevant vehicle. The confidential evidence provided by Johnson Law Group referred to an average purchase price of a specific car brand and suggested it was likely that a significant proportion of claimants against that brand would be awarded £10,000 or at least several thousands of pounds at least. However, the claims in the ads would be understood as relating to all brands of diesel vehicle and the evidence provided was therefore not adequate. Additionally, we noted that the ads were seen in June 2024, which was after the deadline set by the High Court for new claimants against the specific car brand referenced in the evidence. Consumers who responded to the ads would therefore not have been able to make a claim against the brand to which Johnson Law Group’s evidence related.
Notwithstanding that the evidence was not adequate to support the claims, we also noted that even if claimants were awarded £10,000 they would not receive that amount ‘in pocket’, because Johnson Law Group would deduct its fee of up to 50% (including VAT) and the cost of insurance.
Because we had not seen adequate evidence that a significant proportion of claimants in Johnson Legal Group’s diesel emissions cases would receive £10,000, and the ads did not make sufficiently clear that the compensation amount “up to £10,000” was prior to the deduction of up to 50% in fees and the cost of insurance, we concluded the claims were misleading.
On that point, ads (a), (b) and (c) breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1, 3.3 (Misleading advertising), 3.7 (Substantiation), 3.9 and 3.10 (Qualification).
Action
The ads must not appear again in the form complained of. We told JLG Legal Ltd t/a Johnson Law Group that, where ads included provision for consumers to e-sign a contract, that they made clear that by doing so they would be signing a legally binding contract.
We further told them to ensure that ads presented material information prominently, in a clear and timely manner, and did not omit material information. For example, for paid-for search and social media ads which included claims such as “No Win No Fee” or “No Upfront Cost”, or stated a potential compensation figure, material information should (depending on the circumstances) appear either in those ads, or at least be presented clearly on a landing page. Material information included information about how fees and charges were calculated in a successful claim, and that clients may be liable for costs in some circumstances.
We also told Johnson Law Group not to state specific compensation amounts their clients may be awarded unless they held adequate substantiation, and made clear that the amount was prior to the deduction of fees and costs, and what those fees and costs were.
