Ad description
A website for Travel Republic, www.travelrepublic.co.uk, seen in May 2018, included a box which stated, “Lowest Price Guarantee Terms and conditions apply”.
Issue
Two complainants, who were unable to have their price matched, challenged whether the ad was misleading.
Response
Travel Republic acknowledged that the complainants did not receive a price match, but said that in both cases it appeared to be a customer service issue. Travel Republic stated that their policy was to give a price match provided the request met the terms and conditions. The terms and conditions could be accessed by clicking on the box entitled “Lowest Price Guarantee” which linked directly to a page where they were displayed. Travel Republic provided evidence of recent incidences when customers had requested and received a price match.
Assessment
Not upheld
The ASA considered that consumers would understand the claim “Lowest Price Guarantee, Terms and conditions apply” to mean that Travel Republic would match or better the price if they were able to find the same product at a lower price elsewhere. We considered that consumers would understand that there would be some limitations to that offer and we noted that those limitations could be accessed one click away by clicking directly on the ad.
The terms required that the product purchased needed to be an exact match to be eligible for the guarantee and, given the dynamic nature of pricing, that a competing cheaper product would need to be found within a limited time frame. We considered that the terms listed were not misleading in the context of the headline claim. We further considered that consumers would understand in the context of a dynamic pricing environment, that there was likely to be limitations on the length of time that they had to find a cheaper price for the same product. We further considered that the time frame in the terms and conditions was reasonable. We therefore considered that it was reasonable for the terms and conditions to be presented one click away.
Although we noted that the complainants’ experience differed from what was set out in the terms and conditions, we were satisfied from the evidence provided by Travel Republic that their company policy was to provide a price match if the conditions of the offer were met and that in the case of the complainants, the difference appeared to be a customer service issue. For those reasons, we concluded that the ad was not misleading.
We investigated the ad under CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1 3.1 Marketing communications 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 3.9 3.9 Marketing communications must state significant limitations and qualifications. Qualifications may clarify but must not contradict the claims that they qualify. (Qualification), but did not find it in breach.
Action
No further action necessary.
