Background
Summary of Council decision:
Two issues were investigated, both of which were Upheld.
Ad description
A website for Mamedica Ltd, a medical cannabis clinic in London, https://mamedica.co.uk/pricing, seen in May 2025 stated “Compare our fees from year two. After your first year with Mamedica, our clinic fees drop to zero – lower than any other clinic in the UK. We want to provide the best long term clinical service to our patients, with costs to match. Start here”. They provided a bar chart with the heading “Average Year 2 Clinic Fees*” and qualifying text at the bottom of the chart stating “*Typical pricing. Cost may very slightly depending on patient history”. The bar chart stated that Mamedica Access and Mamedica’s average year two fees were £0. It presented average year two prices offered by competitors, including “Releaf PAYG: £300-£375” and “Releaf Subscription: £480”.
Issue
Releaf Dispensary Ltd (Releaf) challenged whether the:
- price comparison was misleading; and
- ad adequately signposted consumers to verification information.
Response
1. Mamedica Ltd confirmed that the bar chart had been removed from their website. They stated the ad compared core clinic-fee components a new patient would typically incur in year two only. It covered follow-up consultations, repeat prescription administration and delivery/administration fees where publicly priced, and excluded medication prices. They said fees for those components were free across their standard plans. They stated that, after the first year, patients would receive at least one consultation annually and further consultations as clinically required, and that they made no claim about consultation length because it varied by patient. They added that a “medical cannabis card” had no legal effect under UK law and had no independent value, because a specialist prescription authorised the purchase of medical cannabis. Mamedica accepted that eligibility for the Access plan was restricted to students, veterans or individuals receiving benefits, but considered that irrelevant because the other plans they offered were open to all and, in every plan, core clinic fees were removed from year two onwards. They said any upfront fee for their plans fell outside of scope because the highlighted chart addressed year two only, and that the comparison objectively matched common cost elements across different commercial models and did not overstate any advantage.
2. Mamedica confirmed that all figures in the comparison were taken from publicly available pricing data published by both Mamedica and Releaf, so consumers and competitors could check each figure against online sources. They said they were open to further signposting and clarifications to ensure the comparison was transparent and easy to verify.
Assessment
1. Upheld
The CAP Code stated that comparisons with identifiable competitors must not mislead, or be likely to mislead, consumers about either the advertised product or the competing product. It further stated that price comparisons must not mislead by falsely claiming a price advantage or by failing to make the basis of the comparison clear.
The ASA considered Releaf’s challenge that the plan referred to in the comparison as the “Releaf subscription”, which was confirmed by Releaf to be their Releaf+ plan, included unlimited follow-ups and that Mamedica provided one. Mamedica had confirmed that whilst they provided patients with at least one consultation annually after the first year, they also offered further consultations free of cost where clinically required. They clarified that there was no limit to these further consultations. On that basis, we understood that both providers allowed further consultations without additional clinic fees when clinically required.
We next considered that Releaf believed their consultations were longer in duration. Mamedica stated their consultation times varied according to each patient’s circumstances and they made no duration claims. Releaf had confirmed that their standard consultations were 30 minutes, whilst another competitor named in the comparison offered 20-minute consultations. While we acknowledged that the nature of the consultation durations differed, in that Mamedica offered variable consultation lengths and Releaf offered a set duration, we did not consider that the difference equated to misleadingly overstating an advantage, because patients could in practice receive a comparable amount of consultation time from either provider depending on their individual circumstances.
We then considered Releaf’s challenge that their Releaf+ plan included administration fees, delivery, a medical cannabis card and reduced-price medication whilst Mamedica’s plans did not. Mamedica confirmed that their standard plans also included administration fees and delivery and so we acknowledged that those services applied to both providers. We noted that whilst Releaf’s Releaf+ plan offered reduced price medication in comparison to its PAYG plan Mamedica told us that the prices for Releaf’s product range was generally above the industry range. However, we did not receive any evidence to demonstrate the comparability of medication prices from Mamedica with those provided by its competitors. Mamedica further argued that a medical cannabis card had no legal effect, as a prescription issued by a specialist constituted valid authorisation for the possession and use of cannabis-based prescription medicine. We understood that whilst not legally required, a medical cannabis card was documentation evidencing eligibility for cannabis-based prescription medicine as well as containing a patient’s details. We considered that convenience was likely to be of value to some patients, especially when interacting with third parties such as the police. We therefore considered that as the comparison excluded this element and did not explain that potential value-adding features differed between the services, the basis of the comparison was unclear and risked overstating a price advantage.
We then assessed Releaf’s claim that eligibility for Mamedica’s Access plan, which we understood waived clinic fees from day one and so was less expensive overall than Mamedica’s standard plans, was restricted to students, veterans or individuals receiving benefits. Mamedica stated that whilst eligibility for their Access plan was restricted, the other plans they offered (Flex, Standard and Transfer) were open to all with clinic fees removed from year two for every plan. We considered that featuring “Mamedica Access”, which was cheaper overall than the standard plans, as a separate entry in the chart, without clear and prominent explanation of its restricted eligibility, especially in the context of a general absolute superiority claim, “lower than any other clinic in the UK”, implied that plan was generally available to all consumers, when that was not the case.
We finally considered Releaf’s challenge that Mamedica’s Access plan had an upfront fee of £200, whilst Releaf’s PAYG plan had an upfront fee of £99. Mamedica argued that their comparison chart focused on year two fees only and therefore upfront fees were outside its scope. We considered that, although the chart was framed around “Average Year 2 Clinic Fees”, the overall impression was of comparative value and so implied an absolute like-for-like advantage. However, given the materially different upfront fee structures, that was not the case.
We noted the heading “Average Year 2 Clinic Fees” and the qualification “Typical pricing. Cost may vary slightly depending on patient history”. However, we considered that did not make clear that potential value-adding features differed between the services or that one of the plans compared was subject to restricted eligibility and that upfront fees varied between the plans. As a result, we considered that consumers were unlikely to understand the full context in which the prices applied. We therefore concluded that the ad did not make the basis of the comparison sufficiently clear and that it was likely to mislead by overstating a price advantage.
On that point, the ad breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1, 3.3 (Misleading Advertising), 3.7 (Substantiation), 3.32, 3.33 (Comparisons with identifiable competitors), 3.38 and 3.39 (Price comparisons).
2. Upheld
The CAP Code stated that comparisons with identifiable competitors must objectively compare one or more material, relevant, verifiable and representative features of those products.
The comparison page did not explain, or clearly signpost, the methodology used to derive the “average year 2” figures, the features included by each provider or the dates and sources for each competitor’s pricing. We noted the ad included the qualification “Typical pricing. Cost may vary slightly depending on patient history” but considered that did not clarify to consumers in sufficient detail how to verify the figures.
Because the page did not provide, or include clear links or directions to, information that would allow consumers to check each element of the comparison, or understand how the average figures were calculated, we concluded that the comparison was therefore not verifiable for consumers.
On that point, the ad breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rule 3.34 (Comparisons with identifiable competitors).
Action
The ad must not appear again in the form investigated. We told Mamedica Ltd to ensure any future comparisons with identifiable competitors did not mislead consumers by falsely claiming a price advantage. We further told them to ensure that any future comparisons with identifiable competitors made the basis of the comparison clear and were capable of independent verification by consumers.
CAP Code (Edition 12)
3.1 3.3 3.7 3.32 3.33 3.34 3.38 3.39
