Background
This Ruling forms part of a wider group of investigations on companies offering CPD (Continuing Professional Development) accreditation services.
Summary of Council decision:
Two issues were investigated, both of which were Upheld.
Ad description
Two paid-for Meta ads, seen 9 December 2025, for The CPD Standards Office, a training accreditation company:
a. The first ad included the text “Join thousands of learning and training providers who’ve future-proofed their business with CPD accreditation […] CPD accreditation from the UK’s leading body can help you” followed by bullet points that stated, “Validate your expertise”; “Win more corporate and B2B contracts” and “Stand out in a crowded market”.
It included a video in which a CPD adviser spoke to the camera about CPD and referred viewers to a free guide on how to “sense check” their training.
b. The second ad included the text the same text as ad (a).
Additional text stated, “GROW your TRAINING BUSINESS”. Smaller text near the bottom of the ad stated, “Discover how CPD accreditation can open doors to new opportunities” and included a call to action that stated, “DOWNLOAD TODAY!”.
Issue
The CPD Register Ltd challenged whether the claim “UK’s leading body” in ads (a) and (b) was:
- misleading and could be substantiated; and
- verifiable.
Response
1. & 2. The Professional Development Consortium Ltd t/a CPD Standards Office said that the wording “UK’s leading body” was not misleading in the context of the ads because it was not a headline claim and was intended as general promotional positioning about the company’s prominence and experience, rather than a precise “number one” claim. They said any ambiguity in the use of the term “leading” was unintentional. They acknowledged however that “leading” could be interpreted as a superiority claim and said they had reviewed their processes. They were willing to clarify the wording used in future ads.
They said the ads were not intended to be comparative because they did not: name or imply reference to competitors; include competitor logos; or present comparative metrics. The ads were designed as sector education communications, promoting awareness of CPD accreditation and providing a free educational download. They offered to provide the downloadable material. They also said they held documentation to support their professional standing, operating since 2012, including accrediting over 1,600 organisations having cross-sector reach, international presence, brand-recognition partnerships, and testimonials.
They said the complaint was from a competitor and there was no evidence of consumer harm as a result of their advertising.
Assessment
1. Upheld
The ASA noted CPD Standards Office’s willingness to make changes to the ads and their view that the ads were not comparative because they did not name or imply specific competitors, include competitor logos, or present comparative metrics. We considered the audience was likely to be able to identify other UK accreditation bodies offering similar services and, as such, the claim amounted to a comparison with identifiable competitors, even though none were named.
Ads (a) and (b) stated “CPD accreditation from the UK’s leading body”. We considered that consumers were likely to understand the claim to mean that CPD Standards Office was the CPD accreditation body with the largest market share in the UK.
We acknowledged that CPD Standards Office said it held documentation supporting its market position, however, we considered that evidence relating only to its own market position was unlikely to demonstrate that it was “the” leading CPD accreditation body in the UK, compared with all their competitors. We considered that, to substantiate the claim, robust comparative evidence covering a reasonable period of time, showing higher UK turnover or a greater UK market share than competitors, or other equivalent objective measures that directly supported the “leading” claim, was instead relevant. Because the advertiser did not provide evidence that demonstrated it was the leading CPD accreditation body in the UK, we concluded that the claim was misleading.
On that point, ads (a) and (b) breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1 (Misleading advertising) and 3.7 (Substantiation).
2. Upheld
As set out above, we considered that the claim “CPD accreditation from the UK’s leading body” was likely to be understood as a comparison with identifiable competitors.
The CAP Code required comparisons with identifiable competitors to be verifiable. That meant that an ad which featured a comparison with an identifiable competitor, including one that could be identified by implication, needed to include, or direct a consumer to, sufficient information to allow them to understand the comparison, and be able to check the claim was accurate, or ask someone suitably qualified to do so.
The ads did not provide any information to ensure that consumers or competitors were able to check the comparative claim, nor did it include a signpost to information on the basis of the comparison. We therefore considered the ads did not allow consumers or competitors to verify the comparison and therefore concluded that it breached the Code.
On that point, ads (a) and (b) breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rule 3.35 (Comparisons with identifiable competitors).
Action
The ads must not appear again in their current form. We told The Professional Development Consortium Ltd t/a CPD Standards Office to ensure that future comparative claims made with identifiable competitors were not misleading, were supported by adequate documentary evidence and could be verified by consumers.
