Ad description
A TV ad and two pages on the On The Beach website, www.onthebeach.co.uk, seen in August 2025:
a. The TV ad featured a voiceover that stated, “Be a booking hero and get free airport lounge access with On The Beach. Celebrate your smarts, bury yourself in the buffet, and get ready for some holiday luxury with your 5-star hol [sic].” Superimposed text on screen read “Min 7-night package holidays. Selected airports. Max 6 people. For departures at least 45 days after booking. Excludes Citybreaks.”
b. The homepage on On The Beach’s website featured a clickable tile with text that read “Free lounge access *Terms apply”. Text underneath stated “FREE Airport Lounge Access Holiday like a VIP with FREE Airport Lounge access on 5* jollies.” Clicking on the tile led to ad (c).
c. A page on On The Beach’s website titled “FREE Airport Lounge Access” featured a banner that read “Free airport lounge access on 5* package jollies Ts & Cs apply”. Text underneath stated, “Holiday like a VIP with FREE Airport Lounge Access […] That’s right, we’re giving you lucky lot FREE Airport Lounge access on 5* bookings for 2025 holidays, so you can get the holiday vibes buzzing before you even get on the plane […] For full T&Cs, keep scrolling!”.
Issue
The complainant, who understood that there was a cap on the total number of free airport lounge passes that could be offered, challenged whether the ads omitted significant information and were misleading.
Response
On The Beach Ltd stated that they always made it clear to customers that terms and conditions applied when promoting their free airport lounge offer. They stated the “cap” on the availability of free airport lounge passes was a reflection of the natural capacity limitations of airport lounges, rather than a cap imposed by On The Beach. They highlighted that their terms and conditions explained that lounge passes were subject to capacity limitations, and that any eligible customers who could not receive free lounge access would be provided with a cash alternative.
They provided data in relation to bookings made between February and August 2025 that were eligible for free airport lounge access. They said this demonstrated that approximately 93 per cent of bookings made during this period received the free airport lounge access as advertised. Any customers who were unable to access the free airport lounge were compensated with a cash alternative above that stated in their terms and conditions.
On The Beach believed that, using historical booking data and forecasting, they had made a reasonable estimate of consumer demand. Because they were confident that they would be able to provide free airport lounge access for most eligible customers, and a large majority of eligible customers had received that access, they did not consider that the cap on availability of free lounge passes was a significant condition that needed to be explicitly highlighted in their advertising.
In relation to ad (a), Clearcast stated that they had fully reviewed the terms and conditions of the offer during the ad’s development. They understood that the airport lounges were managed by third parties, and that On The Beach had no control over the closure of the lounges during advertised opening hours, but would notify consumers of any closures or lack of availability. Since On The Beach compensated customers in the event that an airport lounge was unavailable, they did not consider the cap on the number of lounge passes available to be material information that needed to be included in the ad. They believed the reference to the cap on availability of free lounge passes in the offer’s terms and conditions was sufficient.
Assessment
Upheld
The ASA considered that consumers would understand from the ads that, if they made an eligible booking for a five-star holiday, they would receive free airport lounge access. We considered that consumers may expect there to be some terms and conditions that they were required to meet, such as those featured in the superimposed text in ad (a). In the absence of any information to clarify otherwise, the overall impression to consumers from the ads would be that, as long as they complied with those conditions, they would receive free airport lounge passes.
However, we understood that, due to lounge capacity, there was a cap on the total number of airport lounge passes that could be offered at certain airports at certain travel times. Ad (a) did not include information that the free airport lounge passes were subject to availability. Ads (b) and (c) did not include that information either, although we noted that information about the availability of free airport lounge passes was available in the terms and conditions on On The Beach’s website. The terms and conditions could be accessed from the webpage on which ad (c) was seen. However, we considered that they were not prominently displayed, because consumers were required scroll to the bottom of the webpage and click on an expandable heading to reveal the full text. Given that, it would not be clear to consumers from any of the ads that there was a cap on the number of passes that could prevent them from receiving them.
We reviewed the data that On The Beach had provided. We understood that overall, between February and August 2025 approximately 93 per cent of eligible bookings had received free lounge access. However, the proportion of eligible bookings that received free lounge access was not distributed evenly throughout that time period. Whilst the number of eligible bookings that did not receive free lounge access was generally low between February and May, that number varied significantly during the more popular summer months. For example, in the first week of June 2025, approximately 44 per cent of bookings did not receive free lounge access. This fell to 3 per cent of bookings in the second week of June but rose again to 13 per cent in the third week. There was therefore a significant chance of consumers missing out on the passes because of the cap.
Because the overall impression of the ads was that as long as consumers complied with the conditions of the offer, they would receive free airport lounge passes, whereas that was not the case, and because the ads did not make clear that the cap meant passes were limited, and therefore consumers might not receive them, we concluded that the ads were misleading.
Ad (a) breached BCAP Code rules 3.1 and 3.2 (Misleading advertising). Ads (b) and (c) breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1 and 3.3 (Misleading advertising) and 8.17 and 8.17.8 (Significant conditions for promotions).
Action
The ads must not appear again in their current form. We told On The Beach Ltd to ensure that future ads did not imply to consumers that, as long as they complied with the conditions of the offer, they would receive free airport lounge passes if that was not the case.
