Ad description
A national press ad by Boots, seen in The Mail on Sunday on 22 March 2026, featured headline text on the front page which stated, “FREE No7 face lotion Pick up today from Boots”. Smaller text underneath stated, “Voucher on page 78 In store only. Subject to availability, while stocks last. Terms apply”. The ad included an image of a hand holding a tube of face lotion. Headline text on page 78 of the newspaper stated, “FREE No7 Derm Solutions Lightweight Hydrating Lotion Pick up today from Boots”. Smaller text underneath included “[…] it’s on us! Today only, treat yourself to a free No7 Derm Solutions Lightweight Hydrating Lotion […] Simply cut out the voucher (right), take along to any Boots store today to redeem yours while stocks last […]”. Text on the voucher stated, “Present this voucher at the No7 counter instore at Boots to claim yours on Sunday, March 22, 2026”. Smaller text stated, “Terms & Conditions: […] Some products may only be stocked in larger Boots stores […] Subject to availability, while stock lasts”.
Issue
The complainant, who tried to redeem their voucher but was informed in store that the promotional item was out of stock, challenged whether the promotion breached the Code.
Response
The Boots Company PLC t/a Boots accepted responsibility for the voucher terms and conditions and for the supply of the No.7 Derm Solutions lightweight hydrating lotion. They believed they had taken all reasonable steps to ensure that the free product was available to customers who wished to participate in the promotion and were only aware of the single complaint that had led to the ASA’s investigation. Boots said the estimate of likely demand was based on a previous promotion for the same product, which ran over a six-day period. For the current promotion, the units available across their participating stores at the start of the promotion and the units remaining the day after the promotion ended, indicated redemptions that showed supply had exceeded demand overall. They therefore considered a reasonable estimate of demand had been made and that there had been no general availability issue. Also, because stock remained after the promotion ended and no purchase had been required, they did not consider a substitute product, refund or alternative remedy necessary.
Boots provided information on the stock allocation of the lotion for participating stores. Allocations were based on anticipated demand at each store, taking into account normal sales rates and current stock holding for that store. They said stock levels were managed through its electronic point of sale (EPOS) till system, under which stores received replacement stock for sold items. Additional stock could be sent to specific stores where greater demand was expected based on the performance of similar offers, the usual sales rate for the product, and other relevant factors. Stock levels of the promotional item were not replenished during the promotion. They also said it was possible that some individual stores might have experienced higher demand and run out of stock before the end of the promotion, although they were not aware of any instances of that happening. Boots said that where that occurred, store colleagues would be expected to direct customers to the nearest store that had stock.
Boots said that 90% of stores had participated in the promotion. Some smaller stores, such as community, hospital and health centre pharmacies, and some travel stores, did not stock No.7 products, and many smaller pharmacies did not open on Sundays (the day of the promotion). Regarding the claims “Pick up today from Boots” and “take along to any Boots store today”, Boots said consumers would normally go to a larger health and beauty store to redeem this type of voucher, rather than to a hospital or health centre pharmacy or an airport store, which would not usually sell No.7 products. They also said the wording “take along to any Boots store today” had been written by the Mail on Sunday.
In relation to the complainant’s experience, Boots said they were not aware of any incidents related to insufficient stock supply for any previous promotion, and they would expect to be aware of any systemic issues affecting particular stores. They said consumers who were unable to redeem the voucher in store could not do so later by another means because the end date had been clearly stated on the voucher and the offer could not be extended beyond that date.
Boots maintained that the voucher had stated that the offer was “subject to availability” and “while stocks last”. They said the only way to eliminate entirely the possibility of stock running out would be to hold disproportionately high stock levels, which they considered unrealistic.
Associated Newspapers Ltd t/a The Mail on Sunday said, as the publisher, their role was to work with the brand partner on the ads and mechanics, while decisions on stock levels and distribution across the retail estate sat with the brand and retailer, who held the relevant operational information. The Mail on Sunday said the promotion had been arranged directly with the No7 team at Boots, who had supplied the terms, barcode and assets, and that the promotion had been handled in line with their standard process for the type of promotion. They believed the figures supplied to them by Boots of the stock levels of the No.7 Derma lotion before and after the promotion showed that overall stock had not been exhausted and demand had not exceeded supply. They confirmed that they had not received any direct complaints from consumers.
Assessment
Upheld
The CAP Code stated that promoters were responsible for all aspects and all stages of their promotions and must conduct them fairly and efficiently. It also stated that promoters must avoid causing unnecessary disappointment and that claims such as “subject to availability” did not remove that obligation.
The front-page ad stated, “FREE No7 face lotion RRP £22.95 Pick up today from Boots […] subject to availability, while stocks last”. The inside ad contained similar information and further stated “Simply cut out the voucher (right), take along to any Boots store today to redeem yours while stocks last”. The ASA considered readers would understand those claims to mean that, on that day, they could redeem the offer by taking the voucher to any Boots store that was open and exchange it for the No7 Derm Solutions lotion, while stocks lasted.
We accepted the data on stock levels the day after the promotion indicated that there was sufficient stock of the promotional item across the Boots estate overall during the promotion. We therefore assessed whether the stock had been adequately allocated across individual stores, and whether it had been distributed in a way that gave readers a fair opportunity to obtain the product from the stores they were likely to visit, particularly as they could only redeem the offer on one day.
We understood that Boots had estimated likely demand for the promotional item based on a previous promotion for the same product, together with store-level sales data and existing stock holdings. However, the previous promotion had run over six days, whereas the current promotion ran for one day only. We considered that distinction was significant because a one-day promotion was likely to concentrate demand into a much shorter period. In those circumstances, and without stock of the promotional item being replenished during the day, we considered the likelihood that stock at individual stores could be exhausted before the promotion ended was increased. We also understood that stock allocations to individual stores had been based on each store’s normal sales rate for the No7 lotion and its stock holding just prior to the start of the promotion. We considered that demand for a free product offered in a front-page national newspaper promotion was likely to significantly increase demand for the same product sold at its normal retail price of £22.95. We understood from the complainant that they had made several unsuccessful attempts to redeem similar vouchers over the previous two years. We noted Boots said they were not aware of any issues relating to stock supply in previous promotions. However, we understood that Boots had no established system to be made aware of and record instances when consumers had been unable to redeem offers after visiting stores that had run out of stock. We considered that meant they would be unable to reliably use data from previous promotions to assist them in determining appropriate stock levels for individual stores. While Boots said that stores would be expected to flag any stock-related issues, we did not consider that relying on store staff to raise issues after stock had already run low or run out, or on stock holdings in non-promotional periods, was a sufficiently robust basis on which to estimate likely consumer demand for the current promotion.
We also noted Boots said that store staff could direct consumers to the nearest Boots store with stock if their chosen store had run out. They also said the offer could not be redeemed later by another means. We considered that meant consumers whose chosen store had run out of stock had no practical alternative other than to try another store on the same day. However, we did not consider that referring consumers to another store was an adequate remedy because consumers should not have been expected to visit multiple stores in an attempt to redeem a free item before the offer expired. Furthermore, where consumers were able to redeem the voucher at another store, we considered that Boots had no reliable means of identifying that the consumer's chosen store had been understocked. As set out above, we considered that limited the ability of Boots to identify shortcomings in stock allocation and to use that information to improve future promotions. We therefore considered that consumers who met the conditions of the promotion could nonetheless be unable to obtain the advertised free item, and that the promotion had not been administered fairly.
We acknowledged that Boots said smaller stores such as pharmacy, health centre and airport stores that would not generally carry No7 items and so would not participate in the promotion. However, we considered the prominence of the claims in the ads gave the impression that consumers would be able to obtain the promotional item from almost all Boots stores on the day of the promotion. We noted that the ad stated that it was “subject to availability” and “while stocks last”. However, we did not consider that those statements were sufficient to relieve Boots of their obligation to do everything reasonable to avoid disappointing participants by not having sufficient stock in individual stores.
For those reasons, we considered that the promoters had not demonstrated that they had made a reasonable estimate of the likely response to the promotion, nor had they taken all reasonable steps to avoid disappointing participants.
We therefore concluded that the promotion had not been administered fairly and was likely to have caused participants unnecessary disappointment.
The promotion breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 8.1 and 8.2 (Promotional marketing), 8.9, 8.10, (Availability) 8.14 (Administration), 8.17 and 8.17.8 (Significant conditions for promotions).
Action
The ad must not appear again the form complained of. We told The Boots Company PLC t/a Boots and Associated Newspapers Ltd t/a The Mail on Sunday to ensure that their promotions were administered fairly and that they did not cause participants unnecessary disappointment.
CAP Code (Edition 12)
8.1 8.2 8.9 8.10 8.14 8.17 8.17.8
