Background
This Ruling forms part of a wider piece of work on ads from companies which give the impression they are based in the UK but are actually based overseas in countries such as China, identified for investigation following complaints received by the ASA.
Update to Advertising Codes (7 April 2025):
On 7 April 2025, the Advertising Codes were updated to reflect the revocation and restatement of the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 (“CPRs” – the legislation from which the majority of the CAP and BCAP rules on misleading advertising derived) by the Unfair Commercial Practices provisions in the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024 (“DMCCA”). On that date, the wording of a number of the rules in the Advertising Codes was changed to reflect relevant changes introduced by the DMCCA on 6 April 2025.
Given that the complaints that formed the subject of this ruling were received before 7 April 2025, the ASA considered the ad and complaints under the wording of the rules that existed prior to 7 April 2025, and the Ruling (and references to rules within it) should therefore be read in line with this wording, available here – CAP Code and BCAP Code.
Summary of Council decision:
Two issues were investigated, both of which were Upheld.
Ad description
A website for Muse, www.muse-london.co.uk, an online fashion retailer seen in October 2024, featured text at the top of the home page stating “MUSE LONDON”. The bottom of the home page featured a photo of a London street with a London bus, Union Jack flags and red telephone boxes.
The Refund Policy page explained, “As part of our commitment to customer satisfaction, we accept returns to our UK warehouse. For more information on how to initiate a return, please contact our customer service team at [email protected]”. On the Refund Policy Page, under the heading, “How to Return Your Order” customers were again instructed to email [email protected], but the “Shipping in Transit” section of the same web page referred to the “shipping process from Asia”.
A third web page explained how to “GET IN TOUCH”. It was again headed “MUSE LONDON” and gave the “[email protected]” email address.
Issue
- Two complainants, who understood after placing orders that Muse shipped goods from China, challenged whether the ad misleadingly implied that the company was based in the UK.
- The ASA challenged whether by omitting the identity and geographical address of the marketer, the ad breached the Code.
Response
Muse did not respond to the ASA’s enquiries.
Assessment
The ASA was concerned by Muse’s lack of response and apparent disregard for the Code as well as their failure to provide their full name and geographical business address, which were in breach of CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 1.7 (Unreasonable delay) and 1.7.1 (Compliance). We reminded them of their responsibility to provide a response to our enquiries without delay and told them to do so in the future.
1. & 2. Upheld
The CAP Code stated that marketing communications must not mislead by omitting material information, hiding it or presenting it in an untimely manner. For ads that quoted prices for advertised products, material information included the geographical address of the marketer.
The ad had multiple references to “MUSE LONDON” alongside photos of a London street, with a London bus, Union Jack flags and a red telephone box. The website’s URL had a co.uk domain as did the company’s email address that was provided on the website. The ad also referred to the company having a warehouse in the UK, where returns could be sent. The ASA considered that consumers were likely to understand from those elements that the advertiser was based in the UK. Whilst the ad did refer to there being a “shipping process from Asia” on the Refund Policy page, we considered that text was not prominent and did not sufficiently counter the impression, given by the other elements described above, that the company was based in the UK.
Furthermore, the website quoted prices for advertised products and, save for the single reference to a “shipping process from Asia”, there was no information on the website regarding the geographical address from which the advertiser operated.
We therefore concluded that the ad omitted material information about the advertiser’s geographical location and misleadingly implied that the advertiser was based in the UK, when that was not the case.
The ad breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1, 3.3, and 3.4.2 (Misleading advertising).
Action
The ad must not appear again in the form complained of. We told Persons unknown t/a Muse to ensure their advertising did not misleadingly imply that they were based in the UK and, where their ads quoted prices for advertised products, to include the geographical address from which they operated. We referred the matter to CAP’s Compliance team.
