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.
Ad description
A paid-for Facebook ad and website for Jones Whyte, relating to group action compensation claims for people who had been affected by a data breach:
a. The paid-for Facebook ad, seen on 8 July 2024, stated “If you’ve used Arnold Clark for the below services between 2012 & 2022, you might be affected by a significant data breach. Thousands of customers could be entitled to compensation. Even if you haven’t heard directly from Arnold Clark, you can still join our group action claims on a no win, no fee basis. No upfront costs to you.” Further text stated “Why Choose Us? No upfront costs, No win, no fee, Thousands already involved”. The text “Join Our Group Action Claim today No Up Front Cost To You” appeared at the bottom of the ad, which hyperlinked to the landing page in ad (b).
b. The landing page on the website www.joneswhyte.co.uk, seen on 9 July 2024, was headed “Arnold Clark Data Breach Compensation Scotland”, and gave information about the circumstances of the Arnold Clark data breach and who would be eligible to join the claim. Alongside that, a form prompted website visitors to provide their name and contact details, and details of the claim about which they were enquiring. Further down the webpage under the subheading “Arnold Clark Data Breach – Act Now To Claim Compensation”, text stated “If you’ve bought or sold a car with Arnold Clark in the last ten years, you may have been potentially affected by a significant data breach […] Even if you haven’t heard directly from Arnold Clark, you can still join our group action claims on a no win, no fee basis. No upfront costs to you!”. Under the heading “Join Our Arnold Clark Group Action Claim Today” the text “contact us now” hyperlinked to another enquiry form prompting consumers to provide contact details.
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 (b). The ASA additionally identified ad (a).
The ASA challenged whether ad (a), and FCJ challenged whether ad (b), were misleading, because they did not make clear the fees, costs or other charges associated with joining the group action claim.
Response
Jones Whyte Law Ltd t/a Jones Whyte said that under the CPRs, and the CAP Code which reflected them, material information was information the average consumer needed to make an informed transactional decision about a product or service. Because consumers were not able to instruct Jones Whyte, commit to their retainer or incur liability through engaging with the ads, the only transactional decision available was whether to make an enquiry for further information. Therefore, not all information needed to be provided to consumers at the first point of contact, only that which was relevant to the decision immediately available to the consumer.
They said the language in the ads was clear and unambiguous and that the claims “no win no fee” and “no upfront costs to you” were entirely correct. The phrases were longstanding in the UK. “No win no fee” was intended to indicate to consumers that a fee would be payable if the claim was successful. They confirmed that clients were not asked to make any payments to Jones Whyte. Their fees, which would be deducted from a compensation payment if the litigation was successful, varied between 0% and 40%, inclusive of VAT and all other costs. However, they did not believe that the percentage of the compensation that would be charged as a fee was material information in the context of the ads under investigation. They considered that if the ASA required that the ads include that information, it would be expanding the definition of material information into a requirement to give contractual detail before a consumer even expressed interest in a service.
Jones Whyte said that if the claim was not successful there would be no fee or any other costs payable by the client. Their retainers included terms relating to potential costs in scenarios in which they or the client terminated the litigation. Those were standard in litigation retainers. They were clearly explained in the full pre-contract documentation, and would be anticipated by an average consumer with any experience of legal services. It would not be proportional or consistent with the ASA’s established approach to consider them to be material information in the context of the ads under investigation.
While the ads under investigation did not include details such as their fee percentage, insurance arrangements and exceptional cost scenarios, such details were not material information in the context of the ads under investigation, and were provided before consumers made any binding commitment.
Assessment
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 ads highlighted that consumers who had used Arnold Clark’s services between 2010 and 2022 may have been affected by a data breach, and may therefore be able join group action litigation to claim compensation.
The claims “no upfront costs to you” and “no win, no fee” were repeated three times in the Facebook ad (a). The ASA considered consumers would understand those claims to mean that, if eligible to make 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. We considered the ad invited consumers to investigate further by clicking through to a landing page.
In ad (b) – the landing page from ad (a) – the same claims appeared partway down the page under the subheading “Arnold Clark Data Breach – Act Now To Claim Compensation”. We considered the repetition of the claims “no upfront costs to you” and “no win, no fee” on the landing page reinforced the impression that consumers would have taken from the Facebook ad. Ad (b) also included, at the top of the page, a form which asked consumers for their personal information, in order that Jones Whyte could contact them about the potential for them to join the litigation. It included additional links to the same form elsewhere on the webpage.
Jones Whyte had said they charged up to 40% of the compensation awarded as their fee in a successful claim, and that they did not charge clients any fees in the event that they or the client terminated the claim before its conclusion. They did not provide us with a copy of the contractual terms relating to the Arnold Clark group action claim to support those assertions. We were able to find the terms and conditions for a Jones Whyte group action claim relating to a different data breach, which we understood were likely to be very similar to those for the advertised group action claim.
In line with what Jones Whyte had told us, those terms and conditions stated that in a successful case, the maximum fee that would be applied was 40%, inclusive of VAT, calculated from any damages awarded to the client. That fee included the cost of insurance which 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 costs to you”, the fee and how it was calculated was material information that the consumer needed in order to make informed decisions in relation to the product.
We also understood that Jones Whyte’s contract allowed that clients may be liable for costs, in circumstances we considered they would not reasonably expect. This included, for example, that clients may be liable to pay Jones Whyte’s fees and expenses if the firm chose to withdraw from the litigation because in their opinion they were unlikely to win. Additionally, we understood that the terms allowed that if a client who terminated the contract went on to win their claim, Jones Whyte could charge them a success fee in addition to fees and expenses for work carried out up to the point of termination. 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, we considered they would not expect to be liable to pay Jones Whyte a success fee in those circumstances. We considered when presented with claims about fees and costs, 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.
We acknowledged Jones Whyte believed that the information referenced above was not material to the transactional decision of whether to make an enquiry for further information about their services. We considered that, because the paid-for Facebook ad only invited consumers to find out more, we considered it was not necessary for material information to be included in that ad. 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 ad (a), or on the landing page to which it linked, ad (b), in a clear and timely manner. However, the landing page did not include any of that information.
We concluded the paid-for Facebook ad (a) and the landing page to which it linked, ad (b), 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 (b) taken together omitted material information and therefore breached the Code.
Ads (a) and (b) taken together breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1, 3.3 (Misleading advertising) and 3.9 (Qualification).
Action
The ads must not appear again in the form complained of. We told Jones Whyte Law Ltd t/a Jones Whyte 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 social media ads that included claims such as or “no win, no fee” or “no upfront costs”, 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.
