Ad description
A banner ad for Starlink’s Standard Kit, seen on 21 June 2025, on www.arstechnica.com, a technology website. The text “STARLINK” featured at the top of the ad. Underneath, text stated, “£0 £299 for the Standard Kit with 12-Month Residential Service Plan commitment”. The text “£299” was crossed out. The ad showed an image of the kit. Below the image, small text stated, “Availability and price may vary based on location […] Terms apply. Review the FAQs on starlink.com to learn more”.
Summary of Council decision: Two issues were investigated, both of which were Upheld.
Issue
The complainant, who checked the availability of the offer in their area and found that a demand surcharge applied in addition to the full £299 price of the standard kit, challenged whether the quoted:
- promotional price of “£0” for the standard kit was misleading and could be substantiated; and
- price did not include all non-optional charges.
Response
1. & 2. Starlink Internet Services Ltd t/a Starlink explained that the “Standard Kit” consisted of an antenna and Wi-Fi router. Prior to the launch of the offer promoted in the ad, all UK customers paid £299 upfront for the Standard Kit, plus a monthly cost for their internet service as a rolling monthly contract. The advertised offer, launched on 21 April 2025, meant customers could receive the Standard Kit for £0 if they signed up for a fixed term 12-month residential service plan.
They said the obligation to sign up for a 12-month plan was clearly disclosed in the ad, as was the limitation that “Availability and price may vary based on location”. They said the offer was available across the UK, except for London and its surrounding areas; they shared a map which illustrated the relevant area. The geographical availability of the promotion was designed to encourage growth in regions with excess satellite capacity, while more congested areas were omitted to reduce demand and therefore preserve service quality.
To further manage growth in congested areas they had instituted a ‘demand surcharge’ which was charged in addition to the £299 Standard Kit cost. It was applied only in areas where capacity was limited. Because the surcharge was only applicable in areas of limited capacity, it was only applied to customers in areas that were already excluded from the advertised offer.
They provided confidential detailed sales data relating to new customers signing up for the 12-month residential service plan between 21 April and 3 September 2025. It showed the number of customers in individual postcodes who: received the Standard Kit for free; those who paid £299; and those who paid £299 plus a surcharge. Starlink said it showed the majority of customers received the Standard Kit for free.
They said that due to the broad reach of the ad and the variable pricing based on service location and plan selection, it was not possible to include an exact price for the Standard Kit. However, the ad clearly stated that prices and availability varied by location and directed users to their website for accurate pricing.
Assessment
1.& 2. Upheld
The CAP Code required that marketing communications must not mislead by omitting material information. For ads that quoted prices for the advertised product, material information included the total price of the advertised product, including any fees, charges or other payments that the consumer would necessarily incur, or, if the price could not be calculated in advance, information about how the price would be calculated. Marketing communications must not mislead by omitting significant limitations and qualifications.
The ad included the headline claim “£0 £299 [with £299 crossed out] for the Standard Kit with 12-Month Residential Service Plan commitment”. Smaller text, underneath an image of the Standard Kit, included “Availability and price may vary based on location”. In the absence of specific information as to which locations may or may not qualify for the offer, we considered all UK consumers who viewed the ad would expect that they may be able to obtain the Standard Kit for free if they signed up for a 12-month residential service plan. We considered they would also understand that if they were not eligible for that promotional price offer, they would need to pay £299 for the Standard Kit plus the cost of the 12-month residential plan.
The ad stated the price that consumers would pay for the Standard Kit if they were eligible for the promotional price (£0) and indicated the price they would pay for it if they were not eligible (£299). However, it did not include the price of the 12-month residential service plan, which applied to all consumers, which we understood was £75 per month. We considered that was material information, the omission of which was misleading.
The sales data provided by Starlink indicated that the majority of customers during the period obtained the Standard Kit for free; all those customers had signed up for the 12-month plan. We accepted that a significant proportion of customers during the period had been able to take advantage of the advertised promotional price. The sales data also showed those customers who had paid £299 for the Standard Kit, and those who had paid £299 for the Standard Kit plus a surcharge. Both of those datasets included customers whose postcodes were in the area in which they would be eligible for the advertised offer. Starlink explained that those datasets included customers who had chosen to sign up to plans other than the 12-month plan, but did not provide a breakdown of which plan those customers had signed up for. We were therefore not able to confirm that those datasets did not include customers who were eligible for the promotional price offer but had not obtained it.
The map provided by Starlink showed that the offer was not available to consumers living across the south-east of England; in Greater London, Kent, Essex, the southern part of Cambridgeshire, Bedfordshire, Hertfordshire, Buckinghamshire, Oxfordshire, Berkshire, most of Hampshire, Surrey, West Sussex and East Sussex. We understood those areas amounted to approximately a third of the UK population. We considered that because the offer was not available to consumers in a specifically defined geographical region, covering a significant proportion of the UK population, that was a significant limitation and qualification to the offer which should have been made clear in the ad. We concluded the ad was misleading because it omitted that material information.
Furthermore, as referenced above, we considered consumers would understand that if they were not eligible for the offer, they would pay £299 for the Standard Kit plus the cost of the 12-month plan. While that was the case for some customers, others were charged an additional upfront ‘demand surcharge’, which we noted for the complainant amounted to £195. Because the ad implied that consumers would not pay more than £299 plus the monthly cost of the 12-month plan, when that was not the case, we considered that the ad was also misleading in this regard.
We concluded the ad was misleading because it omitted material information, including the cost of the 12-month service plan, the geographical limitation on the availability of the promotional price offer, and that consumers who were not eligible for the promotional price may be charged an additional fee.
The ad breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1, 3.3, 3.4, 3.4.3 (Misleading advertising), 3.7 (Substantiation), 3.9 (Qualification), and 3.17 (Prices).
Action
The ad must not appear again in the form complained of. We told Starlink Internet Services Ltd t/a Starlink to ensure that their future ads for the promotional price offer did not omit material information, including the cost of the 12-month service plan, the geographical limitation on the availability of the offer, and that consumers who were not eligible for the promotional price may be charged an additional fee.
CAP Code (Edition 12)
3.1 3.3 3.4 3.4.3 3.7 3.9 3.17
