Background
Summary of Council decision:
Two issues were investigated, both of which were Upheld.
Ad description
Three job listings on StudySmarter’s website, www.studysmarter.co.uk, a student resource website that included a jobs page, seen in March 2026:
a. The first listing featured the heading, “Senior Litigation Paralegal - Case Prep & Litigation Support in Maidstone”. Text underneath stated, “Maidstone. Full time. 36,0000 – 60,000 £ / year (est.). No home office possible” and included a clickable button labelled “Apply now”.
b. The second listing featured a Norwich University of the Arts company profile and two job listings with text that stated, “Part-time Hourly lecturer — Fashion Communication and Promotion (Journalism)” and “Marketing Coordinator”.
c. Another listing featured the heading, “Approved Electrician”. Text underneath stated, “Full time. 36,0000 – 60,000 £ / year (est.). No home office possible” and included a clickable button labelled “Apply now”.
Issue
STA International Ltd, Norwich University of the Arts and Downlight Electrical Ltd, who explained that the job listings had either been posted without their consent with incorrect salary information or that the vacancy did not exist, challenged whether:
1. the ads were misleading; and
2. falsely implied that the marketer was acting for purposes outside its trade, business craft or profession.
Response
StudySmarter GmbH did not respond to the ASA’s enquiries.
Assessment
The ASA was concerned by StudySmarter GmbH’s lack of response and apparent disregard for the Code, which was a breach of CAP Code (Edition 12) rule 1.7 (Unreasonable delay). We reminded them of their responsibility to respond promptly to our enquiries and told them to do so in future.
1. Upheld
The ASA understood from STA International Ltd, Norwich University of the Arts and Downlight Electrical Ltd that the job listings had either been posted without their consent with incorrect salary information or that the vacancy did not exist.
The ads presented the roles as live vacancies and included details such as job titles, locations and salary estimates. Ad (b) featured a company profile and ads (a) and (c) also included an “Apply now” button. We considered that consumers would likely understand that the ads related to genuine and current job opportunities and that the information shown, including the salary, was accurate.
Because the complainants stated that they had not authorised the job listings, or that the jobs did not exist, we understood the ads did not relate to genuine job vacancies and therefore concluded that they were misleading.
On that point, ads (a), (b) and (c) breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rule 3.1 (Misleading advertising).
2. Upheld
The CAP Code stated that marketing communications must not falsely claim or imply that the marketer was acting as a consumer or for purposes outside its trade, business, craft or profession and that marketing communications must make clear their commercial intent, if that was not obvious from the context.
We considered that consumers would understand the job listings to be job ads for vacancies with STA International Ltd, Norwich University of the Arts and Downlight Electrical Ltd.
We noted that ads (a) and (c) included an “Apply now” button. When clicked on, the ads took consumers to a page that asked them to provide personal information, including their email address, phone number and to upload their CV. Ad (b) presented a Norwich University of the Arts company profile alongside job listings for specific roles. When the specific roles were clicked on, consumers were taken to the job listing page with an “Apply now” button. We considered consumers were likely to understand the ads as opportunities to apply for genuine vacancies with those organisations, and that the provision of personal details in response to the ads would be part of that application process. However, the information available to us indicated that the purpose of the ads was to collect consumers’ data for lead generation.
Because the ads were presented as job listings for named employers but appeared instead to be used to obtain consumers’ personal data, we considered they did not make their commercial intent clear. We therefore concluded that the ads falsely implied that they were acting for purposes outside their business and breached the Code.
On that point, ads (a), (b) and (c) breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rule 2.3 (Recognition of Marketing Communications).
Action
The ads must not appear again in the form complained of. We told StudySmarter GmbH to ensure that its ads did not mislead by implying they related to genuine vacancies if that was not the case. We also told them to ensure that their ads did not falsely imply that they were acting for purposes outside its business and that the commercial intent of their ads was made clear where that was not obvious from the context. We referred the matter to CAP’s Compliance team.
