Background
Summary of Council decision:
Two issues were investigated, of which one was Upheld and one was Not upheld.
Ad description
A national press and TV ad, seen in October 2012, for a travel insurance provider:
a. The press ad was headed "Staysure(TM) ... over 50s experts" and stated "Travel Insurance for over 50s ... 220 pre-existing medical conditions covered FREE!".
b. The TV ad featured a middle-aged woman packing a suitcase who stated, "Staysure specialise in insurance for over 50s." She then listed various medical conditions that she and her husband suffered from and said they had been able to buy 12 months' of travel insurance for £79. She also stated, "Staysure include 220 pre-existing medical conditions in their cover for free." On-screen text read "All conditions considered".
Issue
The complainant challenged whether:
1. the reference in ads (a) and (b) to "220 pre-existing medical conditions" was misleading, because he believed that many of those were minor or irrelevant to the consumers targeted by the ads; and
2. the implied claim in ad (b) that a couple could buy 12 months' of travel insurance for £79 with the conditions listed was misleading and could be substantiated.
Response
1. Staysure.co.uk Ltd, t/a Staysure (Staysure), responded that it was not misleading to state that they offered cover for 220 pre-existing medical conditions for free. They explained that they used a medical-risk screening service to establish a score which rated the risk for any medical condition, and that that score formed the basis for the medical premium which would be charged for the condition. They said they did not charge any additional premium for conditions that generated a risk score below a given threshold, unlike many of their competitors.
Staysure stated that the conditions covered for free formed part of the medical screening process and were deemed by insurers to potentially affect an individual's fitness to travel and, therefore, the risk that insurers needed to consider. They also noted that cover for some conditions was more general than the named condition might imply. For example, an appendectomy was listed as one of the 220 pre-existing medical conditions covered free of charge, and that would mean that the policy would cover medical expenses and costs associated with a complication from an appendectomy or a related subsequent medical condition. With regard to the issue of whether the conditions covered for free were relevant to the consumers targeted by the ads, they pointed out that, whilst their primary target audience for the ads was the over 50s, they did not impose a lower age limit for customers wishing to purchase insurance with them. They also stated that the person making the booking (the lead traveller) could be of a different age group to other people travelling on the same policy. Therefore, they considered that the conditions listed could all be appropriate to a member of the insured group.
Staysure acknowledged that some of the conditions, such as "torticollis"/"wry neck", were included twice on the list of 220 pre-existing medical conditions covered for free. They said that was because some of their customers might know the condition by one name and not by the other, and therefore listing both names assisted the customer in submitting the correct information and receiving appropriate cover. They stressed that there were never fewer than 220 unique conditions covered free of charge and provided a current list of those conditions. They said the list reflected many of the most frequently declared or screened conditions affecting their customers. They noted that in responding to the ASA they had found a number of "legacy listings" of conditions on the Staysure website, and that corrective action had been taken to resolve these.
In relation to ad (b), Clearcast stated that before clearing the ad for broadcast they had requested and received substantiation for the number of medical conditions covered. They endorsed Staysure's argument that, although some of the 220 conditions covered for free might not be relevant to over 50s, the insurance policy could also apply to others for whom the conditions would be appropriate.
2. Staysure provided copies of screenshots taken during the quoting process demonstrating that a couple, one aged 63 years and the other 65years, with the medical conditions listed in the ad, could obtain a Comprehensive European Annual Multi Trip policy for £79.00.
Clearcast responded that before clearing the ad they had requested and received substantiation that the characters described would be able to obtain cover for the price quoted.
Assessment
1. Upheld
The ASA noted that the ads referred to 220 pre-existing medical conditions covered for no additional premium by Staysure, and that a list of those conditions, which numbered 222 around the time of the complaint, was available from their website during the process of obtaining an insurance quote. Although we acknowledged the updated list of conditions provided by Staysure during the investigation, we considered it necessary to assess the complaint in view of the list available from the website at the time the complaint was made.
We understood that the complainant believed that the reference in both ads to 220 pre-existing medical conditions was misleading, because many of those conditions were minor ailments or not relevant to the market targeted by the ads, and in some cases he had noted that conditions were listed under more than one name. Although we acknowledged all of those points, we accepted that even minor conditions could to some degree affect an individual's risk factor for travel. We considered that most consumers would be aware of that fact and would understand that the 220 conditions referred to were likely to be those carrying a low level of risk for the insurer, including minor ailments.
We noted that the list included a number of conditions, such as pregnancy-related issues, which were unlikely to affect the over-50s market targeted by the ads. However, we understood that Staysure did not impose a lower age limit on the people covered by their insurance policies and that not all members of the travelling party would necessarily be over 50. We considered that a significant number of the target market could be intending to travel with younger friends or family members, and that for them those medical conditions could be highly relevant to the situation. For that reason, we did not find the fact that some of the 220 conditions were unlikely to be of direct relevance to the medical history of the individual targeted by the ads to be misleading.
However, we noted that, of the 222 conditions listed on the Staysure website around the time of the complaint, approximately 20 were duplicates of conditions already listed under another name. That resulted in the total number of pre-existing medical conditions covered for free by Staysure being around 200. We acknowledged the updated list of medical conditions covered for no additional premium by Staysure, but noted that some duplicates still appeared. Although we accepted that it might be helpful to some customers for the conditions to be listed under more than one name, we considered that, in order for the claim referencing 220 conditions not to mislead, the total number once the duplicates had been accounted for should have been 220 or higher. Because that was not the case, we concluded that the reference in ads (a) and (b) to "220 pre-existing medical conditions" was misleading.
On that point, ad (a) breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1 3.1 Advertisements must not materially mislead or be likely to do so. (Misleading advertising), 3.7 3.7 Before distributing or submitting a marketing communication for publication, marketers must hold documentary evidence to prove claims that consumers are likely to regard as objective and that are capable of objective substantiation. The ASA may regard claims as misleading in the absence of adequate substantiation. (Substantiation) and 3.1 3.1 Advertisements must not materially mislead or be likely to do so. (Exaggeration).
On that point, ad (b) breached BCAP Code rules 3.1 3.1 Advertisements must not materially mislead or be likely to do so. (Misleading advertising), 3.9 3.9 Broadcasters must hold documentary evidence to prove claims that the audience is likely to regard as objective and that are capable of objective substantiation. The ASA may regard claims as misleading in the absence of adequate substantiation. (Substantiation) and 3.12 3.12 Advertisements must not mislead by exaggerating the capability or performance of a product or service. (Exaggeration).
2. Not upheld
We acknowledged the screenshots provided by Staysure, which showed how a couple, one aged 63 and the other 65, would obtain a quote of £79 for annual travel insurance with the medical conditions listed. We were able to replicate this process on the Staysure website. We therefore concluded that the implied claim in ad (b) that a couple could buy 12 months' of travel insurance for £79 with the conditions listed was not misleading.
On that point, we investigated ad (b) under BCAP Code rules 3.1 3.1 Advertisements must not materially mislead or be likely to do so. (Misleading advertising) and 3.9 3.9 Broadcasters must hold documentary evidence to prove claims that the audience is likely to regard as objective and that are capable of objective substantiation. The ASA may regard claims as misleading in the absence of adequate substantiation. (Substantiation), but did not find it in breach.
Action
The ads must not appear or be broadcast again in their current form.
