Background
Summary of Council decision:
Two issues were investigated, both of which were Upheld.
Ad description
An email received on 20 August 2025 included the subject line, “Found: your identical holiday for £592 less. Text in the body of the email stated, “We compared. We conquered […] Deal of the Week We’re £592 cheaper. We’re £592 cheaper than easyJet holidays for this jolly departing on 16th September 2025. Reveal this deal”. Smaller text at the end of the email stated, “Terms & Conditions *2 Adults: Package holiday price comparison with easyJet holidays, conducted on 18th August 2025 at 10:02 for 2 adults travelling on 16th September 2025 for 7 nights, from London Luton Airport for a Self-Catering board basis to Muthu Clube Praia da Oura, Portugal. Flights provided by Ryanair. Outbound Flight departing at 18:25 and Inbound Flight departing at 21:40. Price checked includes in-resort transfers, 2x hold baggage and standard hand luggage. Prices are dynamic and are subject to change. Price comparison may not take into account any promotional savings. *Subject to availability and booking conditions apply. The price may fluctuate due to demand. Prices correct on 20/08/25, based on two persons travelling on the same booking.
Issue
easyJet holidays challenged whether the:
- price comparison was misleading; and
- ad adequately signposted consumers to verification information.
Response
1. On the Beach Ltd t/a On the Beach said that the holiday provided by On the Beach as described in the ad was the same in all material aspects as the holiday offered by easyJet holidays and compared a service which was interchangeable. Regarding the flights, they said that using Ryanair rather than easyJet did not invalidate the comparison because both were low-cost carriers on the same route offering functionally equivalent transport and similar flight times, within one hour and that the terms and conditions in the ad stated Ryanair as the airline operating the flight for the On the Beach holiday.
They said regarding the baggage allowance, to ensure a fair comparison, they compared the baggage allowance included in each airline’s standard fare rather than optional extras that required additional payment. Accordingly, they compared Ryanair’s 20 kg standard hold bag with easyJet’s 23 kg standard hold bag. That minor variance did not materially affect the comparison's validity as both allowances provided adequate capacity for a seven-night holiday, serving the same consumer need. In respect of cabin baggage, both airlines included standard carry-on allowances as part of their base fares with Ryanair permitting a small bag (40 x 30 x 20cm) while easyJet allowed under-seat cabin baggage (45 x 36 x 20cm). These represented each airline's standard cabin baggage provision, and both served the same fundamental purpose of allowing passengers to carry essential items onboard.
They said regarding the price that their comparison based on headline prices best served consumers’ interests by providing transparent, consistent and verifiable pricing. That approach ensured price comparisons remained accessible to all consumers rather than being dependent on eligibility for specific promotional offers. They did not include easyJet holidays' £100 promotional discount because promotional codes often carried eligibility restrictions, limited availability, or required specific actions that may not apply to all consumers. Including such variable promotions would render price comparisons unreliable and potentially misleading to consumers who could not access those discounts. They considered that it is was not misleading for price comparisons to exclude discounts where this was made clear to consumers. As the terms and conditions in the ad stated that the comparison did not take into account promotional savings, their view was that the deal shown in the ad was a fair and accurate comparison based on the headline price shown to consumers and did not mislead in any way.
On the timing and substantiation, they said they captured initial prices at 10:02am on 18 August 2025 and re-checked them on 20 August before sending the email. They said their terms stated when prices were checked and warned that prices could fluctuate, consistent with ASA guidance on travel price volatility.
2. On the Beach said the ad made the basis of the comparison clear as it contained all material features of the two holidays, the dates when prices were checked, along with a clear caveat that prices may fluctuate in line with the ASA’s guidance on travel marketing. The ad also included a “Call to Action” button underneath the deal which took consumers directly to their Price Watch landing page. The landing page explained the basis of the like-for-like comparison between the holidays and the corresponding terms and conditions which set out the information consumers needed in order to complete the same searches and verify the price comparison. Although their Price Watch landing page had been updated with new deals since August, they included a screenshot of the specific comparison which was displayed on the landing page at the time the email was sent. When the email was sent on 20 August 2025, the landing page was live, publicly accessible and contained all the information necessary for consumers to verify the comparison independently and that the landing page included the same terms and conditions as set out in the email.
Assessment
1. Upheld
The CAP Code stated that marketing communications that included a comparison with an identifiable competitor must not mislead, or be likely to mislead, the consumer about either the advertised product or the competing product. Marketing communications that included a price comparison must not mislead by failing to make the basis of the comparison clear.
The ASA considered that consumers would likely understand from the subject line “Found: your identical holiday for £592 less” and the body text “Deal of the Week We’re £592 cheaper. We’re £592 cheaper than easyJet holidays for this jolly departing on 16th September 2025” that the On the Beach holiday was identical to the easyJet holiday and that a saving of £592 would be available when they clicked through to the landing page and booked around the time they received the email.
We acknowledged the small print stated when the prices were checked and that prices were dynamic and might change, and that the comparison might not take promotional savings into account. However, that qualification was presented at the end of the email and did not appear sufficiently prominently to counter the overall impression in the subject line and headline claim that a current like-for-like price saving of £592 could be achieved on an identical holiday, with the same material features.
We acknowledged On the Beach’s comment that the services were “functionally equivalent”, that both easyJet and Ryanair were low-cost carriers flying the same route at similar times, that the hold-baggage allowances differed by only 3 kg (20 kg vs 23 kg), and that the comparison used headline prices rather than additional promotional discounts, because such discounts could be conditional or not universally available. However, on that basis, we considered the packages were not identical. We also understood that easyJet holidays had operated a £100 website promotion at the time which reduced the effective package price for consumers who applied the promotional code, and that On the Beach had excluded such promotional savings from their comparison. Given the prominence of the “£592 cheaper” and “identical holiday” claims, we considered that excluding a genuine generally available promotional saving and relying on a different airline, with a lower baggage allowance, to achieve the headline price did not provide a like-for-like basis for an “identical” comparison.
We also understood that when the complainant had clicked on the “Reveal this Deal” button in the email on 21 August, easyJet’s own package was £1,802, taking into account the promotional discount. The On the Beach holiday price shown on the landing page at that point was £1,983, which was over £900 higher than the price On the Beach said applied to their package at the time of the comparison (£1,022.94). We noted that the ad stated, “Prices are dynamic and are subject to change”, “The price may fluctuate due to demand” and clarified when the comparison had last been checked. However, we considered that, nor the rest of the ad, did not make sufficiently clear how quickly consumers may need to act to achieve the claimed saving, in particular given that it was referred to as a “Deal of the Week”, which could imply that the claimed saving could be achieved during the week the email was received. In that context, because the On the Beach price that formed the basis of the comparison differed significantly from the comparison point only a day later, we considered that consumers were likely to be misled about the price saving available.
Because the headline claims gave the impression of a current £592 saving on an identical package, without making clear how quickly consumers may need to act to achieve the claimed saving, whereas the saving was derived from a price snapshot that increased significantly in a short time, and because it excluded a generally available £100 promotional saving on the competitor package, and compared packages that differed on material features including airline, flight times and included baggage allowance (and was therefore not an “identical” package), we concluded that the ad was misleading.
On that point, the ad breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1 (Misleading advertising), 3.17 (Prices), 3.32 (Comparisons), and 3.38 and 3.39 (Price comparisons).
2. Upheld
The CAP Code required that comparisons with identifiable competitors must objectively compare one or more material, relevant, verifiable and representative features of those products. For comparisons to be verifiable, the advertiser should set out the basis for the comparison and sufficient information to allow it to be checked in the ad itself, or signpost in the ad how the information used to make that comparison could be checked by the target audience. Marketers should be explicit about how readers could verify a comparison; merely including a website or postal address, without stating that it was where consumers could verify the comparison, was unlikely to be sufficient.
We considered that the claim “Found: your identical holiday for £592 less” and “We’re £592 cheaper than easyJet holidays” was a comparison with an identifiable competitor and was therefore required to be verifiable. We acknowledged On the Beach’s comment that the email contained terms and that the “Call to Action” button took consumers to a Price Watch landing page which, at the time of sending, explained the basis of the comparison and contained the information needed to replicate the search. We also acknowledged that On the Beach provided a screenshot of what the landing page looked like at the time, but that the page had since been updated with new deals. We accepted that the landing page existed at the time of the campaign and that prices were re-checked on the day the email was sent. However, we considered that relying on a generic “Reveal this deal” button to reach a changing landing page did not amount to adequate signposting to verification information.
We noted the email did not state the On the Beach price used for the price comparison, the price of the easyJet holidays package, or how the £592 saving had been calculated. It also did not direct readers to any source that held the underlying price data or archived evidence (for example, dated screenshots) so they could check the claim. Simply linking to a live product page did not allow readers to verify a past point-in-time comparison, particularly where prices were dynamic and subject to change.
Because the email did not include the holiday prices that were being compared but directed readers only to a sales-focused landing page subject to change as a result of prices that were inherently variable, consumers would be unable to verify the £592 saving with reasonable effort once prices fluctuated.
For those reasons, we concluded the comparison was not verifiable and the ad was in breach of the Code.
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 complained of. We told On the Beach Ltd to ensure that future price comparison claims that were presented as identical were based on packages that were the same in all material respects, and made clear if consumers were likely to need to act quickly to benefit from an advertised lower price. We also told them to ensure future comparative claims included, or clearly signposted to, sufficient information to allow consumers to verify the comparison.
