Ad description
A webpage on Revolut’s website, www.revolut.com, seen on 4 February 2026, featured text that stated “Mobile plans Revolut Mobile is calling Unlimited UK data, calls, and texts for just £12.50 a month, with EU and US roaming included. T&Cs apply [footnote marker]” and included an “Explore Revolut Mobile” button.
Further down the page were a set of expandable sections. The first section was headed “Unlimited 5G, calls, and texts in the UK” and smaller text stated “Get all the data, calls, and texts you need at home for £12.50 a month. Unlimited data subject to Acceptable Use Policy” with “Acceptable Use Policy” shown as a clickable hyperlink to view the policy. Under the “Get reliable coverage” section, smaller text stated “Enjoy unlimited 5G speeds up to 100 Mbps with no throttling or hidden limits. Stream in crystal clear HD and enjoy smooth video calls on Vodafone’s reliable network”.
Small text further down the page, with a footnote marker, stated “Unlimited data subject to Acceptable Use Policy”, with “Acceptable Use Policy” shown as a clickable link to the policy.
Issue
EE Ltd challenged whether the claim that the data plan was “Unlimited” was misleading because it was subject to an Acceptable Use Policy (AUP) which they understood limited data usage to 150 GB per subscription period twice or more in a six-month period.
Response
Gigs Ltd t/a Gigs said they were a reseller of mobile services and had entered the UK market in 2025. Their policy was drafted to allow flexibility for future offerings, including plans with data limits as well as unlimited plans, although they currently only offered unlimited data plans via Revolut Mobile.
They referred to the ASA’s guidance on “unlimited” data claims and a previous ASA ruling, and said that exceeding a usage threshold did not, in itself, make a user illegitimate. They said the relevant factors were whether users avoided additional charges or suspension and whether any limits on the service were moderate. Their “unlimited” plan met that approach because exceeding 150 GB only triggered an investigation if it occurred twice or more in a six-month period, and did not itself result in charges, suspension, or changes to speed or usage. They said action would only be taken where an investigation identified illegitimate or harmful use that breached Gigs’s terms.
In the context of an unlimited data plan, “excessive or abnormal” use was intended to apply only to illegitimate activity not permitted under Gigs’s terms. They said that if a user triggered the threshold, but an investigation found the use was legitimate, no action or restrictions would follow. They provided confidential information about their internal investigation process. They said that where an investigation found use that breached Gigs’s terms, such as commercial, fraudulent, unlawful or unauthorised use, including use in an unauthorised device, they would treat the customer as an illegitimate user and decide what action to take, which in more serious cases would likely be termination of contract.
They also provided confidential subscriber and usage data about the number of customers who had exceeded the 150 GB threshold and what had happened when they did. They referred to Ofcom’s figures on average UK mobile data use in 2025 and said their threshold was around 14 times that level. They reiterated that their unlimited data level had to be exceeded twice within six months before an investigation would take place. They said that, while other providers might use higher thresholds, that did not mean a lower threshold could not reasonably indicate unpermitted use.
Revolut Ltd t/a Revolut endorsed Gig’s comments and had no further comments to add.
Assessment
Not upheld
The ad stated “Unlimited UK data, calls, and texts […] T&Cs apply”. Further down the page, an expandable section headed “Unlimited 5G, calls, and texts in the UK” stated “Unlimited data subject to Acceptable Use Policy”, with “Acceptable Use Policy” shown as a clickable link. The page repeated “Unlimited data subject to Acceptable Use Policy” elsewhere in small text, again with a link to the policy.
The Guidance stated that providers of “unlimited” telecommunications services must be able to demonstrate that a provider-imposed limitation was not contrary to the average consumer’s expectation of a service advertised as “unlimited”. As such, “unlimited” claims were likely to be acceptable only when, firstly, a legitimate user incurred no additional charge or suspension of service as a consequence of exceeding any usage threshold associated with a fair use policy (FUP) traffic management approach; and secondly, when provider-imposed limitations that affected the speed or use of the service were moderate only.
We understood Gigs’s Acceptable Use Policy (FUP) stated the data plans were for legitimate personal use only and that data must be used by an individual end user in the manner intended by Gigs and in line with the policy. It stated that if Gigs believed data use was harmful to the network it could introduce traffic management measures such as reduced speeds or additional charges. If unlimited data use exceeded 150 GB per subscription period twice or more within a six-month period, Gigs reserved the right to investigate. Following that investigation, they could transfer the customer to a more suitable plan, impose restrictions, or take other action where it determined or reasonably suspected the use was not permitted under the policy.
We understood that exceeding 150 GB where it occurred twice or more within six months did not automatically result in any change to speed or usage, and that legitimate users did not incur additional charges or have their service suspended. Exceeding the threshold triggered an internal investigation only, which did not affect the service while it was ongoing, and any action would only be taken where use was found to breach the relevant terms. Gigs provided confidential information about the factors they might consider when assessing whether high usage was consistent with its terms. We considered those checks to be aimed at identifying patterns or indicators of non-permitted use, rather than penalising consumers for high levels of data use. Although some factors could in isolation arise in legitimate cases, we considered the matters identified by Gigs were generally unlikely to reflect ordinary legitimate personal use. On that basis, we considered the investigation process was directed at potential misuse rather than restricting legitimate users.
We noted that Ofcom’s average monthly mobile data usage in the UK in 2025 was 10.6 GB. We acknowledged that some consumers might choose an “unlimited” plan because they expected high usage. However, we considered it significant that 150 GB was around 14 times higher than the average monthly mobile data usage in the UK. We also took into account the confidential subscriber and usage metrics Gigs provided about how their FUP operated in practice. We understood that relatively few subscribers exceeded 150 GB, and fewer still did so twice or more within a six-month period. We further understood that those who did trigger the investigation threshold did not experience any restriction or interruption to their service while the investigation was ongoing, merely as a result of having triggered the threshold. While we acknowledged this was only data collected since the service launched in December 2025, we nonetheless considered that the threshold did not operate as a routine cap on legitimate users’ data use, but rather as a mechanism for identifying potential misuse.
Because legitimate users did not incur charges, suspension or meaningful restrictions as a result of high usage, and any intervention was limited to cases of non-permitted use, we concluded that the claims that the data plan was “unlimited” was not misleading.
We investigated the ad under CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1, 3.3 (Misleading Advertising) and 3.9 (Qualifications), but did not find it in breach.
Action
No further action necessary.
