Background
Summary of Council decision:
Two issues were investigated, both of which were Upheld.
Ad description
A leaflet and a Facebook post by RE/MAX Property Specialists, a franchisee of RE/MAX Scotland operated by Billie Dunlop:a. The leaflet, seen in November 2025, stated “Compare the REMAX Difference” in large letters at the top of the page alongside further text stating “Why Sellers Choose Remax Property Specialists”. It included a table comparing RE/MAX Property Specialists with three named competitors against the following criteria: “Your personal agent all the way”; “Accompanied viewings by your personal agent”; “Personal social media campaign”; “Personalised sale board for maximum marketing effect”; “Same day feedback on all viewings”; “Skilled negotiations by an agent who knows your home”; “Property redress scheme (or similar)”; “Portal marketing (Rightmove, Zoopla, etc.)”; and “#1 in the world for home sales volume!”. All features were ticked for RE/MAX Property Specialists but only two – “Property redress scheme (or similar)” and “Portal marketing (Rightmove, Zoopla, etc.)” – were ticked for the named competitors. The table stated it was “*Based on research of each agency’s standard package” and included the logos of each named competitor. Text below the table stated, “At REMAX Property Specialists, you get: 100% personal service from valuation to completion – Same-day feedback on every viewing – Skilled negotiation to protect your price – Personalised marketing across social media, signage and more!”
b. The Facebook post, seen in February 2026, included the same table comparing RE/MAX Property Specialists with the three named competitors found in ad (a) but did not include the competitors’ logos. Text above the table stated, “Compare the Difference. Billie vs the Competition. Not all estate agents are the same”. Text below the table stated, “With me – Billie at REMAX – you get: a completely personal service from valuation to completion. I host every viewing, give same-day feedback, and personally negotiate to secure the strongest result for your home. I’ll guide you every step of the way – with care, clarity, and your goals at heart.”
Issue
Neilsons Solicitors & Estate Agents (Neilsons) challenged whether the comparison in ads (a) and (b) was:- misleading and could be substantiated; and
- verifiable.
Response
1. & 2. Mr Dunlop stated ads (a) and (b) were intended to compare estate agency service models using publicly available information about competitors’ standard packages. He said the comparison highlighted structural differences between his personal agent model, in which one individual handled property valuation, viewings and negotiations throughout the sales process, and competitor models, which typically involved multiple staff carrying out those roles. It was not intended to suggest that competitors did not provide professional services. He noted that, in the Scottish property market, consumers may encounter both estate agency-only and solicitor-estate-agent models, and he considered the distinction between those service structures to be relevant to consumers. He said he understood, based on legal advice, that comparative advertising was permissible if it was objective, verifiable and not misleading. He added that the claims largely related to his individual service, except for “#1 in the world for home sales volume”, which referred to the global RE/MAX network rather than the performance of an individual agent.He said the claim “Your personal agent all the way” was intended to communicate that he personally managed the sale including conducting viewings, providing feedback and negotiating offers, rather than those responsibilities being shared across a team. He said he would amend the wording to clarify that meaning.
He said “Accompanied viewings by your personal agent” reflected that he personally conducted all property viewings, whereas competitor models often involved viewings being carried out by different staff or, in some cases, by the seller. He said the claim “Personal social media campaign” reflected that social media promotion formed part of his standard service for every listing and was managed directly by him, which he believed was not typically included in competitors’ standard packages in the same way. He provided screenshots showing he had posted 33 individual listing-related Facebook posts over a one-month period, which he considered demonstrated that social media promotion was a consistent and standard part of his service, unlike competitors who he believed were less frequent with social media promotion in relation to specific property listings.
“Personalised sale board for maximum marketing effect” referred to his use of sale boards featuring his name and image, in contrast to competitors’ company branded boards, but confirmed he would remove this claim. He said, “Same day feedback on all viewings” was based on his ability to provide prompt feedback as he conducted viewings himself and interacted directly with buyers, whereas competitors would need to gather and relay feedback second hand.
He stated he made the claim “skilled negotiations by an agent who knows your home” as he personally conducted all viewings and therefore had direct knowledge of the properties, buyers and their circumstances. He contrasted that with competitors who operated a team-based approach where negotiators may not have personally visited the properties or met the buyers. He stated he would amend it to reflect the difference in service structure.
Following legal advice and the complaint, he said he had amended the comparison table by removing competitor logos, presenting competitor names in plain text and refined wording to emphasise objective and verifiable differences. He confirmed the original version had been withdrawn and would not be used again.
RE/MAX Scotland said they had oversight of franchisees’ compliance with regulatory requirements and their internal code of ethics. They stated franchisees were responsible for marketing their services within their local areas and that comparative marketing had been used by the brand over several years. They sought to ensure that any comparisons were based on verifiable information and were not misleading, and said they understood and aimed to comply with ASA requirements.
They said similar comparison materials had been used in other regions without objection, and considered that Mr Dunlop’s response to the complaint, including the amendments made to the ads, was measured and reasonable. They added that, while they considered the original claims to be compliant, the changes made were a good faith response. They emphasised that the ads were intended to highlight genuine differences in service models in a competitive market.
Assessment
1. Upheld
The CAP Code stated that marketing communications that include 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. It also stated that comparisons with identifiable competitors must compare products meeting the same needs or intended for the same purpose, and that they must objectively compare one or more material and verifiable features of those products.
The ASA acknowledged Neilsons’ concerns that Mr Dunlop acted as an individual estate agent, whereas Neilsons and the other competitors named in the comparison operated as companies. However, we considered they were all offering estate agency services that met the same need and were intended for the same purpose, notwithstanding differences in how those services were provided. We also considered consumers were likely to understand the comparison table as comparing the RE/MAX service advertised by Mr Dunlop with the services offered by the named competitors. While some claims in the comparison referred expressly to a “personal” agent and were therefore likely to be understood as relating to Mr Dunlop’s own involvement in providing the service, the comparison did not consistently distinguish between claims relating specifically to Mr Dunlop personally and claims relating to the wider RE/MAX business or network. We assessed the claims in the context of the overall impression created by the ad.
In relation to the claim “Your personal agent all the way”, we considered consumers were likely to understand the claim as meaning that Mr Dunlop would personally oversee and handle the sales process throughout. We understood that he personally conducted viewings and acted as the main point of contact for clients whereas competitors may delegate aspects of the process to various agents. We therefore considered the claim was not misleading. Regarding the claim “Accompanied viewings by your personal agent”, Neilsons stated that seller-led viewings were standard practice in Scotland and that competitors could also offer agent accompanied viewings where required. However, we understood that all viewings were personally conducted by Mr Dunlop and that was not standard for the competitors named in the comparison and so again the claim was accurate.
For the claim “#1 in the world for home sales volume!”, we acknowledged Neilsons’ concerns that consumers were likely to interpret the claim as referring to Mr Dunlop’s individual estate agency, rather than the wider global RE/MAX network. We acknowledged Mr Dunlop’s explanation that the claim referred to the wider global RE/MAX network rather than his own individual performance. In the context of the ad, and because consumers were likely to have some familiarity with RE/MAX as a wider brand, we considered consumers were likely to understand the claim as relating to the RE/MAX brand rather than specifically to Mr Dunlop personally. We therefore considered the claim did not misleadingly suggest Mr Dunlop’s individual estate agency was the world number one for home sales.
Regarding the claim “Personal social media campaign”, we acknowledged Mr Dunlop’s argument that the term “personal” referred to the service being delivered by a single individual. However, in the context of the ad, we considered consumers were likely to interpret the claim as referring to the availability of tailored social media promotion for individual properties, rather than the structure of Mr Dunlop’s business. We understood that competitors also offered social media marketing and, on that basis, considered the claim was misleading. We further considered the claim “Personalised sale board for maximum marketing effect” was ambiguous. We understood that, in practice, the claim referred to the inclusion of Mr Dunlop’s name and image on the sale boards. However, in addition to being unclear, we understood that the competitors also offered personalised sale boards in accordance with their branding and therefore considered the claim was misleading.
We next considered the claim “Same day feedback on all viewings” and Mr Dunlop’s explanation that, because he conducted viewings himself and interacted directly with buyers, he was able to provide prompt feedback. However, we had not seen evidence to show that same day feedback was provided in all cases, or that competitors could not achieve the same outcome. We considered the claim was presented as a guaranteed and superior feature of Mr Dunlop’s service that had not been substantiated. We therefore considered it was misleading.
We finally considered the claim “Skilled negotiations by an agent who knows your home”, which was intended to relate to negotiations being carried out by the same individual that conducted viewings. We considered that was not clear, however, and that the claim was instead likely to be interpreted as a subjective comment on the level of skill and knowledge offered by the named competitors. As such, it did not set out an objective standard against which consumers could compare Mr Dunlop’s service with competitors’ services, and we therefore considered it was misleading.
We acknowledged that Mr Dunlop had amended some of the claims in his advertising. However, for the reasons stated above, we concluded that the comparison in ads (a) and (b) was misleading.
On that point, ads (a) and (b) breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1 (Misleading Advertising), 3.7 (Substantiation), 3.32 and 3.34 (Comparisons with identifiable competitors).
2. Upheld
The CAP Code stated that comparisons with identifiable competitors must objectively compare one or more material, relevant, verifiable and representative feature of those products.
We noted the comparison table stated that the comparison was “*Based on research of each agency’s standard package”. However, neither ad explained, nor clearly signposted, the sources relied on or the date on which the comparison had been made. The ads also neither provided, nor included clear directions to, information that would allow consumers to check each element of the comparison for themselves.
We considered that consumers were therefore not given enough information to understand how the comparisons had been drawn or to verify whether the features attributed to the advertiser and the named competitors were accurate. Because the ads neither provided, nor clearly directed consumers to, information that would allow them to verify the comparison, we concluded that the comparison was not verifiable and therefore breached the Code.
On that point, ads (a) and (b) breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rule 3.34 (Comparisons with identifiable competitors).
Action
Ads (a) and (b) must not appear again in the form complained of. We told Billie Dunlop t/a RE/MAX Property Specialists to ensure that comparisons with identifiable competitors did not mislead and were verifiable. We also told them to ensure they objectively compared material features, held adequate substantiation for objective comparative claims, and to avoid making claims that implied their service offered features or advantages that competitors did not offer, if that was not the case.
