Background
Summary of Council decision:
Four issues were investigated, all of which were Upheld.
Ad description
A website, www.officialiphoneunlock.co.uk, seen on 26 November 2015, 13 January 2016 and 19 February 2016, for a company that unlocked iPhones:
a. The home page featured text that stated “Official iPhoneUnlock.co.uk … Easily remove the network lock on your iPhone so you can use it permanently on the network of your choice ... Sales/Support 0843 … TrustmarkReviews TRUSTED REVIEWS 9.5 BEST IN CATEGORY Ease of Use: 9.8/10 Speed of Delivery: 9.7/10 Value for Money: 8.5/10 Customer Service: 9.5/10 Overall score: 9.5/10 ... Permanently factory unlock your iPhone without jailbreaking - by whitelisting your IMEI in the Apple iTunes database ...".
b. On the “Pricelist” page, it featured various logos for mobile networks and the length of time it would take to unlock a phone. The page showed the Vodafone logo along with text that stated “Available now - Pre-order unlock for fast delivery … (1-3 days Unlock)”.
c. On the “Unlock EE UK iPhone” page, one of the complainants had entered their IMEI number and was presented with text that stated, “Permanent Unlock Guaranteed EE UK iPhone 4 £19.99 Available now - pre-order now for fast delivery in 24-72 hours …”. At the bottom of the page was further text that stated “… Reviews of EE UK Official iPhone Unlock” and featured various testimonials. The first one rated the advertiser’s service with five stars and stated “Alex … Feb 25, 2016 8:44 am This team got my iPhone unlocked. There was a back log with there [sic] provider but they sorted it out. They kept me up to date with emails. I would defo recommend the Official I phone unlock company to unlock your Iphone TOP TEAM thanks”. The second testimonial also rated the advertiser’s service with a five star rating and stated “Mr … Hay Feb 7, 2016 5:47 pm Phone unlocked without any problems great service, took the same time as stated and phone is working fine was [sic] Vodafone now works with my ee SIM card, would recommend to anyone wanting phone unlocked as quick as possible”.
Issue
The ASA received complaints from four members of the public.
1. One complainant challenged whether the website omitted material information because they could not locate the advertiser’s office address.
2. Two complainants challenged whether the “TRUSTED REVIEWS” scores in ad (a) and the testimonials in ad (c) were genuine.
3. Two complainants, who had not got their phones unlocked within 1–3 days, challenged whether the timeframes quoted in ads (b) and (c) were misleading and could be substantiated.
4. One complainant, who understood that iPhones that were not unlocked by a mobile network operator could not be guaranteed to be permanent, challenged whether the claims in ads (a) and (c) that the advertiser could “permanently” unlock an iPhone were misleading and could be substantiated.
Response
1. Official iPhone Unlock Ltd (officialiphoneunlock.co.uk) provided their office address and stated that it was located on their “Who-is” page.
2. officialiphoneunlock.co.uk stated that the review scores and all the testimonials shown on their website and third-party platforms were genuine.
officialiphoneunlock.co.uk stated that they used four different review sites, which filtered in reviews and included: Trustpilot, Sitejabber, ReviewCentre and Trustmark.Reviews. They stated that the review sites were independent of officialiphoneunlock.co.uk and that there were over 10,000 reviews across all four platforms. They stated that the testimonials shown on their website were based on video reviews customers had provided.
3. officialiphoneunlock.co.uk provided data which they believed showed that they had unlocked iPhones connected to Vodafone and EE within 1–3 days. They stated that at the time the complainants had purchased their orders, it had taken them longer than usual to unlock iPhones connected to EE and Vodafone for reasons that were outside their control, which they claimed was reflected on their website having quoted a timeframe of 7–30 days.
4. officialiphoneunlock.co.uk stated that they permanently unlocked iPhones, which they believed was demonstrated in the video testimonials shown on their website.
Assessment
1. Upheld
The ASA noted that officialiphoneunlock.co.uk stated that their office address was located on their “Who is” page. However, we could not locate their office address on their website.
We noted the CAP Code required marketing communications, which quoted prices for advertised products, to include the geographical address of the marketer. Because the ad quoted prices for an advertised product, but did not include the geographical address of the marketer, we concluded that it breached the Code.
On this point the website breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules
3.1
3.1
Marketing communications must not materially mislead or be likely to do so.
3.3
3.3
Marketing communications must not mislead the consumer by omitting material information. They must not mislead by hiding material information or presenting it in an unclear, unintelligible, ambiguous or untimely manner.
Material information is information that the consumer needs to make informed decisions in relation to a product. Whether the omission or presentation of material information is likely to mislead the consumer depends on the context, the medium and, if the medium of the marketing communication is constrained by time or space, the measures that the marketer takes to make that information available to the consumer by other means.
and
3.4.2
3.4.2
the identity (for example, a trading name) and geographical address of the marketer and any other trader on whose behalf the marketer is acting
(Misleading advertising).
2. Upheld
We understood that the review scores were based on customer feedback posted on third-party websites at officialiphoneunlock.co.uk’s request. Furthermore, we noted that although officialiphoneunlock.co.uk had stated that their video testimonials shown on their “Testimonials” page were also genuine, it was the written testimonials shown on the “Reviews of EE UK Official iPhone Unlock” page that we were assessing. However, officialiphoneunlock.co.uk did not provide any data showing how they had obtained the “TRUSTED REVIEWS” scores nor documentary evidence to show that the testimonials or scores were genuine.
Therefore, because we considered that officialiphoneunlock.co.uk had not provided sufficient information to substantiate the “TRUSTED REVIEWS” scores in ad (a) and shown that the testimonials in ad (c) were genuine, we concluded that the claims were misleading
On this point ads (a) and (c) breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1 3.1 Marketing communications must not materially mislead or be likely to do so. (Misleading advertising), 3.7 3.7 Before distributing or submitting a marketing communication for publication, marketers must hold documentary evidence to prove claims that consumers are likely to regard as objective and that are capable of objective substantiation. The ASA may regard claims as misleading in the absence of adequate substantiation. (Substantiation) and 3.45 3.45 Marketers must hold documentary evidence that a testimonial or endorsement used in a marketing communication is genuine, unless it is obviously fictitious, and hold contact details for the person who, or organisation that, gives it. (Endorsements and testimonials).
3. Upheld
We noted that the data officialiphoneunlock.co.uk provided showed that they had unlocked iPhones connected to the EE network within 1–2 days. However, the dates covered in the list were from 6 to 9 March 2016 rather than the dates when the complainants had purchased their orders. Furthermore, the data did not show any iPhones connected to the Vodafone network that had been unlocked by officialiphoneunlock.co.uk.
Therefore, because we considered officialiphoneunlock.co.uk had not provided robust documentary evidence to support the quoted timeframes for unlocking an iPhone connected to the EE or Vodafone networks, we concluded that the claims “(1-3 days Unlock)” in ad (b) and “pre-order now for fast delivery in 24-72 hours” in ad (c) had not been substantiated and were misleading.
On this point ads (b) and (c) breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1 3.1 Marketing communications must not materially mislead or be likely to do so. (Misleading advertising) and 3.7 3.7 Before distributing or submitting a marketing communication for publication, marketers must hold documentary evidence to prove claims that consumers are likely to regard as objective and that are capable of objective substantiation. The ASA may regard claims as misleading in the absence of adequate substantiation. (Substantiation).
4. Upheld
We noted that officialiphoneunlock.co.uk stated that they permanently unlocked iPhones and told us to watch the video testimonials shown on their “Testimonials” page, where consumers claimed that their iPhones had been permanently unlocked. We noted that there were many videos posted on the page, but only one appeared to be working. Text underneath it that stated, “I have an iPhone that was locked to Orange Switzerland. To get it unlocked it cost ??81.99 [sic], however it is a factory unlock, meaning it will always be unlocked despite any restores [sic] or updates …”. In the video, the customer showed how she was unlocking her iPhone via officialiphoneunlock.co.uk by connecting it to her computer, but no further explanation was provided. However, we considered that this information needed to be provided by officialiphoneunlock.co.uk, explaining how they were able to permanently unlock an iPhone along with documentary evidence to show that that was the case.
Therefore, because officialiphoneunlock.co.uk had not provided documentary evidence to support the claims “Easily remove the network lock on your iPhone so you can use it permanently on the network of your choice” and “Permanently factory unlock your iPhone” in ad (a) and “Permanent Unlock Guaranteed EE UK iPhone 4” in ad (c), we concluded had not been substantiated and were misleading.
On this point ad (a) breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1 3.1 Marketing communications must not materially mislead or be likely to do so. (Misleading advertising) and 3.7 3.7 Before distributing or submitting a marketing communication for publication, marketers must hold documentary evidence to prove claims that consumers are likely to regard as objective and that are capable of objective substantiation. The ASA may regard claims as misleading in the absence of adequate substantiation. (Substantiation).
Action
The ads must not appear again in their current form. We told www.officialiphoneunlock.co.uk that their future advertising must make sufficiently clear their geographical location and to ensure they held sufficient evidence to substantiate their marketing claims and show that their testimonials were genuine.
