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:
Two issues were investigated, both of which were Upheld.
Ad description
A website and paid-for Facebook ad for Join the Claim, relating to group action compensation claims by people who had been affected by a data breach:
a. A page on the jointheclaim.com website headed “Join the Arnold Clark data breach claim”, seen on 2 August 2024, continued “Are you affected by the Arnold Clark data breach? If so, Join the Claim to get the justice and compensation you deserve”. A box to the right-hand side included the text “Find out if you could join a no-win, no-fee Arnold Clark data breach claim. It will only take a few minutes and there’s no obligation to proceed” followed by a button labelled “Check Your Eligibility” which linked to ad (c).
The page included further information about the data breach and three questions relating to who was eligible to join the compensation claim, stating “If you answered yes to any of the above, you could have a NO-WIN, NO-FEE Arnold Clark compensation claim.” Further text stated “How it works” included “Our simple eligibility checker provides instant clarity. Answer a few straightforward questions, and you’ll now if you could qualify for an Arnold Clark data breach group action claim. […] Your matchmaker for justice, if eligible, we’ll pair you with a regulated law firm running a suitable claim.”
Further down the page seven questions and answers were included in drop-down boxes under the subheading “Arnold Clark data breach FAQs”. This included: “Are you affected by the Arnold Clark data hack […] Arnold Clark said it would write to all affected and potentially affected customers. However, even if you have not received this notification, you might still be impacted. Our simple eligibility checker provides instant clarity […]”; and “How much will it cost me to make an Arnold Clark data breach claim? At Join the Claim, we unite law firms and individuals to ensure powerful group action claims […] We won’t charge you a single penny when you sign up to join a claim, but we might take a fee from the law firms we introduce you to”.
b. The paid-for Facebook ad, seen on 24 June 2024, stated “If you have been a customer of Arnold Clark within the last 10 years, you could be owed compensation. Over 500 gigabytes of data related to the breach were posted on the dark web. Some affected individuals are yet to be notified that their confidential data has been exposed. Check to see if you are eligible to join the Arnold Clark data breach claim”. Text under an image stated “jointheclaim.com Arnold Clark Data Breach Compensation Check Join the Claim”.
c. The landing page on the website jointheclaim.com, seen on 27 June 2024, was headed “Arnold Clark Data Breach claim” followed by the smaller text “Register your interest and we’ll connect you with a UK law firm running a [sic] Arnold Clark data breach claim”. The question “Have you been notified by Arnold Clark that your data may have been breached?” was followed by “YES” and “NO” buttons. This was followed by a series of questions as website visitors answered each question yes or no. Under the questions, text that stated “By clicking continue, you agree to our Terms and Conditions” hyperlinked to a “Terms of Service” webpage.
Once the questions were completed, website visitors were taken to a page where they must provide their name and contact details and tick a box next to the text “I agree to the privacy policy” which hyperlinked to a relevant webpage.
Further text stated “By clicking ‘Continue’, you acknowledge that we will use submitted data to assess your eligibility for this claim. Refer to our Privacy Policy to learn more.”
Text in the footer on each webpage included “Join The Claim is not a law firm. We unite law firms and individuals to ensure powerful group action claims. We do not charge consumers, but we might take a fee from the law firms we introduce them to. We do not take any responsibility for the advice or representation provided by any law firm or claims management company we connect you with. Nothing on this website constitutes legal advice. While we do check eligibility for all claims, we cannot guarantee that a law firm will accept you as a client.”
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; and
- ad (a) was misleading, because it did not make clear the fees, costs or other charges associated with joining the group action claim.
Response
The ads were published by the lead generation firm Big On Media Ltd t/a Join the Claim. All leads generated from the ads were passed by Join the Claim to the law firm KP Law Ltd.
1. KP Law believed consumers were aware that law firms used lead generation firms, as it was a common practice. In any case, the ads made clear that Join the Claim was not a law firm.
They said that ad (a) was not a standalone ad, but an area of the jointheclaim.com website that was dedicated to the Arnold Clark data breach claim. The homepage of jointheclaim.com contained references such as “uniting law firms and individuals” which they considered specifically informed consumers that Join the Claim’s role was to connect the consumer to a law firm. That webpage did not imply Join the Claim was a law firm. They said consumers would access ad (a) via the homepage, with that information in mind.
They later said that Join the Claim had confirmed that ad (a) was the landing page for organic searches relating to Arnold Clark data breaches, and for social media ads such as ad (b). The webpage provided a detailed explanation of who could sign up and how. The “How it works” section clearly set out a three-stage process of checking eligibility, registering interest, and joining the claim. The latter stage stated “Your matchmaker for justice, if eligible, we’ll pair you with a regulated law firm running a suitable claim”. They said that was clear and transparent, and clearly signposted to consumers that Join the Claim did not run the claim, but that they would be referred to a regulated law firm that did. They said this was also repeated in the FAQs in a number of ways, including a reference to “your solicitor” in “How much compensation could I get?”, and answers to two other questions which referenced bringing, uniting or connecting law firms with “you”, “consumers” or “individuals”. The ad included explicit statements that Join the Claim was not a law firm in four separate places in the ad. It did not include any statement that they were. Additionally, while the ad did not set out that Join the Claim worked only with KP Law, they did not consider it was misleading to consumers whether they worked with one law firm or more.
They said there was no time constraint or pressure on website visitors to check their eligibility; they could view ad (a), and the rest of the website, to which there were clear links in the ad, at their leisure. All the information referenced above was freely available and accessible to consumers. KP Law further noted that consumers could not sign up to join the claim without clicking through from ad (a) to ad (c) to provide their full details, and signing KP Law’s retainer documentation, having first reviewed the associated guidance notes.
They said the Facebook ad (b) informed consumers of the key details of a potential claim that might be particular to their circumstances. There was no commitment or inducement to sign up to any claim; it merely afforded those who were interested the opportunity to obtain further information by clicking through to the landing page. While the Facebook ad did not make reference to a law firm, they did not consider that was misleading, as the link to jointheclaim.com provided further information. They did not consider anything in the ad implied that Join the Claim was acting outside of its business as a platform or service that facilitated the process of joining a legal claim, with a third-party law firm. They believed it would be impractical to fully set out Join the Claim’s role, and that consumers would not assume that Join the Claim was a law firm.
They said the landing page from the Facebook ad was ad (a). They considered consumers who arrived at ad (a) from the Facebook ad therefore were provided with relevant details about Join the Claim’s role on that webpage. Clicking the “Check Eligibility” button on that webpage took consumers to ad (c).
KP Law said ad (c) was not an ad; rather it was the funnel through which eligibility criteria was checked. It stated at the top of each page that Join the Claim would “connect you with a UK law firm running a [sic] Arnold Clark data breach claim”. They said the footer at the bottom of each page also clearly stated that Join the Claim was not a law firm. Those statements would be read by all consumers who were answering the questions relating to eligibility criteria. If a consumer was eligible, they were directed to a further webpage that introduced KP Law as the law firm who would take the claim further.
Big On Media t/a Join the Claim said it was common practice for law firms, particularly those operating in areas such as litigation, to engage lead generation firms to run marketing campaigns to attract potential clients. They believed consumers were familiar with that practice. Additionally, the purchase of legal services was typically preceded by informed and research-based decision-making. Consumers did not expect to receive legal representation simply by completing an online form. They were likely to review the full text of an ad and explore the advertiser’s website to understand the nature of the services offered.
They said that the Legal Services Consumer Panel’s 2024 Tracker Survey noted that 90% of respondents used a regulated legal business. Join the Claim therefore believed that consumers were attuned to the distinction between regulated law firms and other types of providers in the marketplace, and that consumers exercised caution and were predisposed to engage only with regulated providers. None of their ads made any indication that they were a law firm, or law firm regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) that could deal with a compensation claim. They said a 2023 SRA survey had found that 55% of respondents who visited a firm’s website prior to instruction recalled seeing the SRA logo. They also believed the average consumer who saw their ads would understand that terms such as ‘SRA-regulated law firm’, ‘solicitor’ and ‘barrister’ were specific titles used by authorised individuals and companies. They would infer, from the absence of those terms, and the SRA logo, from Join the Claim’s ads, that Join the Claim was not such an entity. The average consumer was therefore not likely to mistake a lead generation service for a regulated law firm, even in the absence of explicit disclaimers.
They further said the name “Join the Claim” did not imply they were a law firm. Rather, it suggested a platform or service that facilitated the process of joining a legal claim. The focus was on the action of participating in a claim by checking if eligibility requirements were met, rather than on the provision of legal services directly by a law firm. That distinction was important to ensure clarity and avoid any misunderstanding about the nature of the service being offered.
In relation to ad (a) they said it made prominent that they merely acted as a matchmaker and just passed on their leads’ details to a specific law firm, with the leads’ fully-informed consent.
They said the copy prominently displayed that Join the Claim’s role was to facilitate access to justice, not to provide legal services themselves. Their role and relationship with law firms was explained in an easy-to-understand and clear way. A number of statements in different parts of the ad made clear that Join the Claim was not a law firm, but instead acted to match eligible claimants to regulated law firms running a suitable claim in order for them to access compensation through group action cases.
They said those statements were not hidden in a footer but were presented in the same font and font size as other information. The “Check Your Eligibility” button in the box to the right-hand side directly beneath the headline claim was accompanied by text that stated “[…] there’s no obligation to proceed.” That made it clear to consumers that, at that stage, they would only be accessing the eligibility checker and not legal services from a law firm. Additionally, the “How it Works” section was one of the most prominent parts of the text and that part explicitly stated that they were simply a “matchmaker” and their leads would be matched with a law firm. Furthermore, the FAQ section included a “What is a group claim?” section which explained how the whole process worked, including how they matched leads with a law firm.
The Facebook ad, ad (b), made no reference to Join the Claim being a law firm or offering legal services; consumers would understand from the absence of any related terms that the ad was not for such an entity. They said the landing page from the Facebook ad was ad (a), where consumers could then click through to ad (c) to check their eligibility. They highlighted that when consumers landed on ad (c) they were advised to “Register your interest and we’ll connect you with a UK law firm running an Arnold Clark data breach claim”. That made clear that no legal services were being provided at that stage. They added that it was technically impossible to convey all potentially relevant information within the available space of a social media ad.
In relation to ad (c), they said it explicitly stated that their role was to facilitate access to justice, not to provide legal services themselves. They highlighted statements in the “JOIN THE CLAIM” section which set out that they: were not a law firm; connected people who registered their interest with a UK law firm running an Arnold Clark data breach claim; did not take responsibility for the advice or representation provided by any firm they connected individuals with; and checked eligibility for claims but did not guarantee that a law firm would accept an individual as a client. Those statements were in the same font and font size as the contact details form, and were set against a blue background which made them more prominent than the form.
Internet users who arrived at the sign-up page on their website (ad (c)), would always have first seen ad (a), and so would have seen information on that page which set out that they were not a law firm. They said that, having provided their contact information, consumers were informed of the identity of the law firm to which their details would be passed and of the process involved.
2. KP Law noted again that ad (a) was not a standalone ad, but an area of the jointheclaim.com website dedicated to the Arnold Clark data breach claim. The webpage provided a funnel through which consumers could access additional information about the claim, assess their eligibility criteria and, importantly, review the legal documentation they would sign up to if they joined the claim.
The placement of the claim “no win no fee” was not overly prominent and it was not used excessively. They did not consider the claim to be misleading. If the client was not successful in their claim, they would not pay KP Law’s fees. Through the course of litigation there were potential circumstances when charges may be incurred, but those were fully set out in the legal documentation with which they were provided before they signed up.
“No win no fee” was commonly used in ads. In the context of ad (a) it was sufficiently clear that it was an indication of a widely known fee charging structure for solicitors’ firms. It differentiated it from a fixed cost fee that might be expected in other legal work such as conveyancing, or a traditional hourly rate. They considered the term would be widely understood by the average consumer of legal services. Clients would expect further detail of costs and charges at the point of signing a contract with the law firm and reviewing any terms of business.
Once a client had clicked through from ad (a), filled out their initial details to determine their eligibility and provided their contact information, they were presented with a page which introduced KP Law. Clicking through from that page took consumers to further pages which included a full copy of the Conditional Fee Agreement (CFA) and Form of Authority. A headline summary of the agreement and a full set of detailed guidance notes on each clause was also provided. The CFA and guidance notes were fully transparent on fee structures and set out potential circumstances when charges may be incurred through the course of the litigation.
After signing, a claim pack was emailed to the client with all signed documentation. Clients had a statutory 14-day ‘cooling-off’ period during which they could exercise a right to cancel. They believed consumers had sufficient time and knowledge throughout the sign-up process to determine and understand the fees payable by them.
Join the Claim considered that as the ads made clear their role with the consumer and with the law firm, consumers would be aware that their relationship with Join the Claim and that with the law firm would each be subject to its own terms and conditions. They said the average consumer would be knowledgeable about how they could obtain legal services, from whom, and the terms that may be attached to the provision of such services.
They said information about fees was material information in relation to KP Law’s legal services, not Join the Claim’s intermediary services. There may be additional costs or fees that may be imposed by KP Law on individuals. However, given the limitations of the lead generation form it would be neither practical nor proportionate for Join the Claim to summarise the terms of their customers’ agreement with the law firm. They said the ‘no-win, no-fee’ phrase already implied that if the claim was successful there may be additional charges.
KP Law’s fees were, however, communicated to consumers in a clear and transparent manner in subsequent steps: when consumers filled out the sign-up form in ad (c) they were presented with a full version of the no-win no-fee agreement before their data was passed onto KP Law. That included prominent text stating that claimants may be charged a fee if the claim was successful. They were therefore sufficiently informed about the terms of the agreement they would sign with the law firm, and all extra fees that may be attached to it.
Assessment
1. Upheld
The ASA considered that most consumers would be unlikely to be aware that some law firms used lead generation firms; intermediary companies which found potential clients, collected their personal information and sold it on to the law firm. Only a minority of consumers were likely to have prior experience or knowledge of that practice, which was used primarily by law firms that focused on areas of law such as group litigation or personal injury. We therefore assessed the ads in the wider context of consumers’ lack of familiarity with that practice.
Ad (a) was a page on Join the Claim’s website about group action litigation relating specifically to the Arnold Clark data breach. We noted that, having used a search engine for relevant terms such as “Arnold Clark data breach” in November 2024, we were served organic search results for Join the Claim for which the landing pages were either ad (a) or ad (c). We therefore considered that most visitors to ad (a) were likely to have arrived there directly from a search engine. Those consumers would not have seen information elsewhere on Join the Claim’s website relating to its role as a lead generator. We therefore assessed ad (a) from the perspective of those consumers.
We acknowledged the ad did not include the SRA’s logo or a statement that Join the Claim was a regulated law firm, but we considered the absence of such was not a clear indicator to consumers that the ad was for a lead generation firm rather than a law firm.
We also acknowledged that partway down the page, under the subheading “How it works”, text included “Your matchmaker for justice, if eligible we’ll pair you with a regulated law firm running a suitable claim”. The drop-down “FAQs” towards the bottom of the page included similar statements in response to the questions “What is a group action claim?” and “How much will it cost me to make an Arnold Clark data breach claim?”. The latter included the clear statement “We are not a law firm”. A similar statement was included below the FAQs and in small font in the footer of the webpage.
However, we considered the positioning and relative prominence of those statements in the overall presentation and content of the page would impact consumers’ understanding of Join the Claim’s business and the commercial intent behind the ad.
The trading name “Join the Claim” featured in a logo at the top of the webpage, and was repeated throughout the page, including in font colours, sizes and styles that contrasted with surrounding text. For example, in the headline “Join the Arnold Clark data breach claim”, the words “Join the […] claim” were in white, with the remainder in light blue. We considered that in the absence of prominent clarification otherwise, the trading name “Join the Claim” was likely to be interpreted by consumers to be the trading name of the law firm that was litigating the group action claim for compensation.
Additionally, the layout of the page foregrounded information about the data breach, the circumstances under which consumers may be eligible to claim compensation, and Join the Claim’s ability to help consumers check their eligibility. Statements that Join the Claim was not a law firm appeared a significant way down the page. As those statements were not prominent, we considered that the overall impression of Join the Claim’s role was at best ambiguous.
Furthermore, statements such as “Your matchmaker for justice, if eligible we’ll pair you with a regulated law firm running a suitable claim” suggested that Join the Claim worked with a range of law firms in relation to Arnold Clark data breach compensation claims, and would find the most suitable for each claimant. We therefore considered that even those consumers who inferred from the ad that Join the Claim’s role was as a lead generator would not expect that Join the Claim worked only with KP Law.
We also noted the page featured a box to the right-hand side directly beneath the headline claim, which encouraged consumers to click on a button to “Check Your Eligibility”, that took them directly to ad (c). We considered that as a result of that page design, some consumers would click through without seeing any statements which referenced Join the Claim’s role. Based on the information at the top of the page, those consumers would therefore understand that Join the Claim was litigating the group action.
We concluded that a significant proportion of visitors to the webpage would not understand that the purpose of Join the Claim’s business was to generate leads to sell on to law firms running group action claims, and specifically in relation to ad (a) to generate leads relating to the Arnold Clark data breach to sell directly to KP Law only. We concluded ad (a) therefore falsely implied Join the Claim was acting for purposes outside its business and did not make clear Join the Claim’s commercial intent.
The Facebook ad, ad (b), featured the Join the Claim trading name, provided summary information about the data breach and invited consumers to click through to see if they were eligible to join the claim for compensation. The ad did not include the SRA logo or a statement that Join the Claim was a regulated law firm, but as above we considered the absence of such was not a clear indicator to consumers that the ad was for a lead generation firm rather than a law firm. In the absence of information to the contrary, we considered the impression was that Join the Claim was litigating the group action claim. We concluded ad (b) therefore falsely implied that Join the Claim was acting for purposes outside its business and did not make clear Join the Claim’s commercial intent.
Ad (a) linked to ad (c). It included the statement “Register your interest and we’ll connect you with a UK law firm running a [sic] Arnold Clark data breach claim” directly under the headline. In the footer, text included “Join the Claim is not a law firm. We unite law firms and individuals […] We do not charge consumers, but we might take a fee from the law firms we introduce them to”.
Because ad (c) was a short webpage, the information in the footer was much more prominent than in ad (a). We considered that the prominence of the information meant it was clearer that Join the Claim was not litigating the group action claim and was instead gathering leads to pass to law firms that were. However, we noted it did not state that all leads would be sold to KP Law only. It was not until consumers had answered all questions relating to whether they were eligible to claim, and had then provided their personal contact information, that they were presented with a page which specifically promoted KP Law. In any case consumers would arrive at the webpage from ad (a) and would therefore already be under the impression that Join the Claim was litigating the claim. In that context we considered ad (c) was likely to confuse rather than clarify Join the Claim’s role for consumers.
Because the ads gave the impression that Join the Claim was litigating the group action when they were a lead generation firm, which was working only with KP Law, we concluded they falsely implied that Join the Claim was acting for purposes outside its business and did not make clear their commercial intent.
On that point, ads (a), (b) and (c) breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 2.3 (Recognition of marketing communications) and 3.1 (Misleading advertising).
2. Upheld
As referenced above, we considered most consumers who viewed ad (a) would not have viewed other pages of Join the Claim’s website beforehand, and would instead likely have arrived at it directly from a search engine. We therefore reviewed the ad in that context.
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 claim “no-win, no-fee” appeared in four places on the webpage, including in boxes directly beneath the headline claim and further down the page alongside invitations to click through to check eligibility. We considered consumers would understand the term “no win, no fee” 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.
For those consumers who had not already clicked through to check their eligibility, that understanding would be further reinforced by the answer to the final FAQ question “How much will it cost me to make an Arnold Clark data breach claim?”. It stated that Join the Claim did not charge consumers who signed up to join a claim, but that they may take a fee from the law firm they introduced clients to.
Join the Claim passed all leads generated from the ad to KP Law. We understood KP Law charged a fee of up to 25% (inclusive of VAT) of the compensation awarded in a successful claim, with no other costs payable. We considered that when presented with claims about fees and costs such as “no win, no fee”, 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 KP Law’s contract allowed that clients may be liable for costs, in circumstances we considered they would not reasonably expect. This included, for example, that if a client cancelled their agreement but went on to win the claim, KP Law may still charge the client a success fee. 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 KP Law a success fee in those circumstances. We considered that 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.
The webpage, ad (a), did not include information about KP Law’s fees and how they were calculated, or information that consumers may be liable for costs in some circumstances. We understood that information was only provided once consumers had: clicked through to ad (c); answered the questions relating to whether they may be eligible to claim; provided their personal contact information; and clicked through from the page which introduced KP Law. We therefore concluded that ad (a) breached the Code because it 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. It omitted material information and therefore breached the Code.
On that point, ad (a) 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 Big On Media Ltd t/a Join the Claim to ensure that further marketing communications did not falsely imply they were acting for purposes outside their business and made clear their commercial intent. For example, they must make clear that the purpose of their ads was to generate leads for law firms; and when selling leads to only one law firm, make that clear and name the firm.
We told KP Law Ltd t/a KP Law, and Big On Media Ltd t/a Join the Claim to ensure that ads presented material information prominently, in a clear and timely manner, and did not omit material information. For example, for ads on advertiser’s own websites that included claims such as “no win, no fee”, 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.
