Background
Summary of Council decision:
Two issues were investigated, both of which were Upheld.
Ad description
A blog on the Languagenut website, www.languagenut.com, seen on 28 March 2025, featured the headline “Languagenut vs Sanako … Which Learning Platform is Best for Schools”. The page featured comparisons between the two digital language learning platforms. The page featured the claims “Languagenut offers a complete solution for Modern Foreign Languages (MFL) education […] while Sanako does offer language learning resources, it often focuses on limited content and may not provide the same breadth of languages and interactive learning tools […]”, “Languagenut is designed with simplicity in mind […] While Sanako offers a digital language learning solution, its platform is less intuitive, making Languagenut the more accessible and user-friendly option for educators and students” and, “Languagenut offers competitive pricing, with flexible plans that cater to schools of all sizes […] Sanako […] can be more expensive and may not offer the same level of value for money when compared to Languagenut”. The page featured several other similar claims.
Text at the end of the article stated, “Why Schools Prefer Languagenut” and “When comparing Languagenut and Sanako, it’s clear that Languagenut offers a more comprehensive, engaging, and cost-effective solution for language learning in schools”.
Issue
Sanako UK challenged whether the content, accessibility and price comparison claims between Languagenut and Sanako were:
- misleading and could be substantiated; and
- verifiable.
Response
1. Languagenut Ltd provided information about their language learning platform and Sanako’s products which they believed substantiated the comparative claims. They said that Languagenut offered 30+ world languages, and curriculum content from primary school to A-level. In comparison, they said Sanako Connect supported six core languages and their website stated their platform was best suited for high schools and universities. Languagenut said that their platform was browser-based and required no software installation. They said that their platform had accessibility features and was compatible with all devices.
Languagenut provided information on the pricing models for Sanako Connect and Languagenut. They said that Languagenut’s price was based on a whole-school unlimited access subscription and did not have per-user licensing fees and did not have additional hardware or installation costs. They said that there were additional requirements necessary to run Sanako’s software, and the price was based on a concurrent user licensing model.
Languagenut acknowledged that the claim “Why Schools Prefer Languagenut” required independent verification, although highlighted the number of students using their platform and the customer retention rates. They offered to provide testimonials and customer references from schools using the Languagenut platform.
2. Languagenut acknowledged that the webpage did not provide adequate information for consumers to verify the comparative claims. They suspended the webpage to make amendments to implement verifiability measures.
Assessment
1. Upheld
The ASA considered that consumers would understand the claim “while Sanako does offer language learning resources, it often focuses on limited content and may not provide the same breadth of languages and interactive learning tools” to mean that Languagenut offered more content and interactivity on its learning platform than Sanako.
Similarly, we considered consumers would understand the claim “while Sanako offers a digital language learning solution, its platform is less intuitive, making Languagenut the more accessible and user-friendly option for educators and students” to mean that it was easier to use and more accessible for users than Sanako.
We further considered the claims “Sanako […] can be more expensive and may not offer the same level of value for money when compared to Languagenut” and “When comparing Languagenut and Sanako, it’s clear that Languagenut offers a more comprehensive, engaging, and cost-effective solution for language learning in schools” would be understood to mean that Languagenut was cheaper and better value for money than Sanako for schools.
To substantiate the claims, we expected to see objective evidence that: Languagenut offered more content and interactivity than Sanko; it was more accessible and easier to use; and it was better value for money.
We understood from Sanako UK that Sanako offered several different products which catered for different requirements, including Sanako Connect and several versions of Sanako Study. We understood that the price of those products varied significantly depending on product type and customer requirements. We further understood that Sanako Connect offered content for 26 different languages and was aimed at high schools and universities.
We assessed the evidence provided by Languagenut, which consisted of publicly available marketing materials for Sanako’s products. Although we acknowledged that Languagenut appeared to offer services for a larger number of languages than Sanako, we had not seen evidence on the content or learning tools that either programme offered, nor the number of languages supported by Sanako Study. We had not seen objective evidence which substantiated the claim that users found Languagenut to be more accessible or easier to use than Sanako products. Although Languagenut offered to provide testimonials and references from existing Languagenut customers, we did not consider that these alone would be adequate substantiation for the claims made.
Languagenut provided information on the pricing models for Languagenut and Sanako Connect, but did not provide evidence of the price of Sanako’s products nor any objective price comparisons. We understood that the cost of the products varied based on different requirements, such as number of users or languages, and that Sanako offered different products with different pricing structures. We considered that the basis for the cost comparison was not clear in the ad, and Languagenut had not provided substantial evidence to support their claim that their service was better value for money than Sanako.
In the absence of evidence to demonstrate that Languagenut’s service was better value for money, offered more content and was more accessible, interactive and user friendly than Sanako, we concluded that the ad was misleading.
On that point, the ad breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1 (Misleading advertising), 3.7 (Substantiation) and 3.33 (Comparisons with identifiable competitors).
2. Upheld
The CAP Code required comparisons with identifiable competitors to be verifiable. That meant an ad which featured a comparison with an identifiable competitor needed to include, or direct a consumer to, sufficient information to allow them to understand the comparison and be able to check the claim was accurate, or ask someone suitably qualified to do so.
The ad did not provide any information to ensure consumers could verify the comparative claims made, nor did it include an adequate signpost to information that formed the basis of the comparisons. For those reasons, we considered that the ad had not provided consumers with information to verify the comparisons made, and therefore concluded the ad breached the Code.
On that point, the ad breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rule 3.35 (Comparisons with identifiable competitors).
Action
The ad must not appear again in the form complained of. We told Languagenut Ltd not to make comparison claims against competitors unless they held adequate substantiation for those claims, and to ensure such claims were verifiable.
