Background
Summary of Council decision:
Two issues were investigated, both of which were Upheld.
Ad description
Two paid-for Meta ads for Trip.com, an online travel agency, seen in July 2025:a. The first ad, seen on Instagram, featured an image with the claim “UK Railcards 7 - 10 Jul £35”, with the number crossed out. At the centre of the image, further text appeared “£1.00” in bright blue, enlarged font. The caption stated, “Save up to 50% on Travel”. At the bottom of the image, there was small print that stated, “*Prices are subject to change. Please refer to the Trip.com app for current prices”.
b. The second ad, seen on Facebook and Instagram, featured the same image and caption as ad (a), without the “7 - 10 Jul” claim.
Issue
- Five complainants, who were unable to purchase a railcard at the advertised £1 price because only 100 railcards were available at that price, challenged whether the ads breached the Code.
- One complainant, who understood that the terms and conditions of the promotion stated that the offer was only available on 4 July, challenged whether ad (a) was misleading.
Response
1. Trip.com Travel Singapore Pte. Ltd t/a Trip.com said that they ran two separate campaigns concurrently on 4 July 2025, both of which offered £1 railcards. Ad (a) concerned the “7.7 Mega Sale” campaign that they ran the from 3 to 10 July 2025. Ad (b) promoted a separate campaign the “Train Summer Sale” campaign with different promotional mechanics and terms and offered an availability of 100 railcards).
The 7.7 campaign featured multiple offers, including the £1 UK railcard promotion; 50 railcards were available as part of that offer. Trip.com said that when users clicked on ad (a), they were taken directly to the campaign landing page, which displayed all key information including the condition that only 50 railcards were available at the promotional price on 4 July. They acknowledged that not including this information in ad (a) itself had caused confusion and were committed to ensure that they included all material limitations (like availability) directly in social media ads for their future campaigns.
2. They said that ad (a) incorrectly featured the text “7-10 Jul” as the campaign dates, when in fact the correct dates were 3 to 10 July, with the £1 railcard offer being available on 4 July. They identified the error on 8 Jul, at which point they removed the ad. They acknowledged that, while the 4 July date was included on the landing page, they recognised that it could have been clearer for users if that information had also appeared on the ad itself. In their view, the full campaign length (3 to 10 July) was part of the promotional period because the 7.7 Mega Sale was comprised of multiple offers with different availability periods. While some offers, such as the £1 railcard offer, were available only on specific dates, other offers were available throughout the entire promotional period (such as flight discount coupons). They said that the campaign landing page and terms and conditions specified the availability dates for each offer. They acknowledged the importance of ensuring that all dates displayed in their ads were accurate and said that they would strengthen their review processes to address this.
Assessment
1. Upheld
The CAP Code required that promotors must be able to demonstrate that they had made a reasonable estimate of the likely response. Ads (a) and (b) concerned two discrete promotions: the “7.7 mega sale” (with an availability of 50 £1 railcards) and the “Train Summer Sale campaign” (with an availability of 100 £1 railcards). We had not seen any evidence that Trip.com had made a reasonable estimate of the likely demand for either of those promotions.
The CAP Code also required promoters to show that they were capable of meeting the likely response or that consumers had sufficient information, presented clearly and in a timely fashion, to make an informed decision on whether or not to participate – for example, regarding any limitation on availability and the likely demand. We considered that there was likely to be a high level of demand to participate in the promotion because the offer included a £1 railcard, which was a significant reduction in comparison to its usual selling price of £35. However, we had not seen any evidence that Trip.com were capable of meeting that demand. We therefore reviewed whether consumers had sufficient information regarding any limitations to the availability of the offers. We noted that ads (a) and (b) did not feature any qualifying information regarding the availability of the £1 railcards. We considered that, in the absence of any qualifying information, the ads suggested that the offer was a discounted price that applied to any consumers who bought a railcard on the advertised date. We acknowledged that the terms and conditions did clarify the availability of railcards for each of the promotions, but because this information was not included in the ad, we considered it was not presented clearly and in a timely fashion.
We had not seen evidence that Trip.com had made a reasonable estimate of the likely response, that they were capable of meeting that response or that consumers had sufficient information, presented clearly and in a timely fashion, in order to make an informed decision on whether or not to participate for the reasons set out above. For those reasons, we also considered that potential participants were likely to have been caused unnecessary disappointment. We therefore concluded that the promotions breached the Code.
On that point, the ads breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 8.2 (Promotional marketing) and 8.10 (Availability).
2. Upheld
The CAP Code stated that marketing communications must not materially mislead or be likely to do so.
Ad (a) included the text “7-10 Jul”, which we considered consumers would interpret as the period during which the “£1” railcard promotion, was available. We understood, however, that the £1 railcard offer was only available on 4 July, and that by 7 July the promotion had already ended.
Because ad (a) implied that the £1 railcard offer was available from 7 to 10 July, when that was not the case, we considered that it was likely to mislead consumers about when they could take part in the promotional offer. We therefore concluded that the ad breached the Code.
On that point, ad (a) breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1 (Misleading advertising).
Action
The ads must not appear again in the form complained of. We told Trip.com Travel Singapore Pte. Ltd t/a Trip.com to ensure that they had made a reasonable estimate of the likely response to a promotion and to either demonstrate that they were capable of meeting that response or that consumers had sufficient information, presented clearly and in a timely fashion, to make an informed decision on whether or not to participate. We also told them to ensure that they did not mislead consumers by implying that an offer is available during a particular timeframe, when that was not the case.
