Background
Summary of Council decision:
Two issues were investigated, of which one was Not Upheld and one was Upheld.
Ad description
A page on Utility Warehouse’s website https://uw.co.uk/mobile, seen on 5 March 2026, featured text that stated, “Get the UK’s best value SIM only deal […] Enjoy unlimited data with 99% UK coverage, flexible monthly contracts with 5G and free EU roaming included”. The claim “unlimited data” was hyperlinked to a further page headed “The UK’s best Unlimited data multi-SIM only deals”. Text on that page stated, “Enjoy endless surfing, streaming, and scrolling with the UK’s cheapest SIM-only unlimited data deal. You can add up to three extra SIMs to the Unlimited Max £23 SIM for free until the end of March. Don’t worry about your usage and get super-fast speeds with 4G and 5G with 99% UK coverage. Caught the travel bug? Our Unlimited Max plan includes free EU roaming as standard too”.
On both pages, an expandable section beneath the main text entitled “The legal bit” included the text “Unlimited Max tariff […] Inclusive EU Roaming with Unlimited Max, subject to 14GB roaming cap. Data consumption subject to 500GB personal usage cap. EU roaming on our Essential Max plan is subject to your 10GB data allowance and gives you access to 4G with a compatible phone. See terms & fair use policy.” Terms and fair use policy were shown as clickable links, with fair use policy linking to a document entitled “Residential Mobile Fair Usage Policy”.
Issue
The complainant challenged whether the claim that the data plans were “Unlimited” was misleading because:
1. a Fair Use Policy (FUP) of 500GB applied; and
2. the ad did not make the FUP restriction sufficiently clear.
Response
1. Utility Warehouse Ltd t/a Utility Warehouse said FUPs served a legitimate network management purpose. They allowed proportionate action where a customer's high-intensity usage contributed to congestion, whilst still allowing a reasonable level of service. That approach was endorsed by Ofcom in its October 2023 Net Neutrality Annexes which specifically permitted a fair use mechanism being included in contractual terms. Ofcom actively monitored compliance with both the net neutrality legislation and their guidance, with its most recent findings published in the February 2026 Net Neutrality Annual Monitoring Report. As per the guidance and report, inclusion of a FUP was justified and the Report specifically named Utility Warehouse as an organisation showing no cause for concern with the way in which they operated their FUP.With regards to the limit itself, they said their FUP limits were in-line with industry, in comparison to their competitors offering unlimited data SIMs of 550 GB and 600 GB per month and 650GB of data twice within a six-month period.
They confirmed that, as per the guidance, for the purposes of network integrity they did have a FUP on their unlimited SIM tariffs and provided data to show the proportion and number per month of customers impacted by the FUP. Since the 500 GB FUP limit was put in place, no Utility Warehouse customer had been subjected to de-prioritisation of data traffic or reduction in speed of their service as a result of breaching the FUP. Rather than acting as a commercial protection, the FUP existed mainly to protect the integrity of the UK’s mobile network. For the purposes of over 99% of their customers, 500 GB was “unlimited” and for those that did exceed the limit, their usage had not been limited and therefore suffered no detriment.
Utility Warehouse said they had not taken action under the FUP because all customers who had exceeded the threshold had been legitimate users, so no intervention had been needed. They said action would only be considered where their network operator or internal team flagged usage causing significant disruption, and only after a case-by-case investigation to distinguish between technical faults and genuine misuse. They also said their network operator had never flagged significant disruption and they had never identified illegitimate data network use, so they had never enforced the FUP by any means.
They said they had not subjected any legitimate users to additional charge or suspension of service and their FUP was clearly explained in their marketing communications and throughout their customer onboarding journey.
2. Utility Warehouse said as the FUP existed only as a fallback to protect the integrity of the UK’s mobile network and was not something they had had to enforce, they considered the level of prominence given to the qualification was appropriate. Information about their FUP was “one click away” on a drop-down directly below the claim. The qualification was not hidden in small print at the bottom of the webpage and was written in the same size font as the body copy. On normal web browsers a potential customer would not even have had to scroll after clicking on the drop down. They said the existence of the FUP was not a material qualification that needed to be included in the body-copy. They included reference to it in their “The legal bit” drop-down which clearly explained the size of the cap and then linked to the full version of their fair use policy.
Assessment
1. Not upheld
The ad stated, “Get the UK’s best value SIM only deal” and “Enjoy unlimited data”, and the linked page repeated claims including “The UK’s best Unlimited data multi-SIM only deals” and “Enjoy endless surfing, streaming, and scrolling”. The ASA noted that, in “The legal bit” on both pages, the ad stated, “Data consumption subject to 500GB personal usage cap” and linked to Utility Warehouse’s terms and fair use policy.
CAP’s Advertising Guidance on making “unlimited” claims in advertising for telecommunications services (the Guidance) stated that providers of “unlimited” telecommunications services must be able to demonstrate that a provider-imposed limitation was not contrary to the average consumer’s expectation of a service advertised as “unlimited”. We considered that “unlimited” claims were likely to be acceptable where a legitimate user did not incur additional charges or suspension of service as a consequence of exceeding any usage threshold associated with a fair use policy, and where any provider-imposed limits on speed or use were moderate only.
We understood that Utility Warehouse’s fair use policy was intended to identify possible non-personal, illegitimate use, rather than to restrict ordinary personal use of the service. We acknowledged Utility Warehouse’s explanation that usage above 500 GB per month was treated only as a possible indicator of misuse and did not automatically result in enforcement action. We noted their explanation that no customer had been subject to de-prioritisation, reduced speeds, additional charges or suspension as a result of exceeding 500 GB. While we acknowledged that the fair use policy referred to possible measures including additional charges or temporary suspension, we understood that, in practice, exceeding the threshold did not itself affect the service and would only prompt consideration of whether the usage suggested non-personal, illegitimate use.
Because we understood that legitimate users did not incur charges, suspension or service restrictions as a result of exceeding 500 GB, and because the 500 GB threshold did not operate as a routine cap on legitimate personal use, we concluded that the claims that the data plans were “Unlimited” were not misleading.
On that point, we investigated the ad under CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1 and 3.3 (Misleading advertising), but did not find it in breach.
2. Upheld
The CAP Code stated that marketing communications must not mislead by omitting significant limitations and qualifications and that qualifications must not mislead by not being presented clearly. The Guidance stated that any provider-imposed limitations, as well as meeting the conditions referenced in point 1 above, must be clearly explained in the marketing communication. Notwithstanding that users did not incur a charge or suspension, and the restrictions imposed were moderate only, we considered that the existence of the FUP constituted a limitation and should therefore be made clear in the ad.
We noted that, although the main page stated, “Enjoy unlimited data” and the linked page referred to “Unlimited data” and “endless surfing, streaming, and scrolling”, neither page stated in the main text that a 500 GB fair use restriction applied.
We acknowledged that, on both pages, an expandable section headed “The legal bit” included the statement “Data consumption subject to 500GB personal usage cap”, and that links to the terms and fair use policy were provided there. However, we considered that consumers were unlikely to understand from the headline claims alone that any restriction applied to the advertised “unlimited” service. We further considered that consumers would not necessarily click to expand “The legal bit”, even if it appeared beneath the main text, and that the qualification could therefore easily be overlooked.
Although the 500 GB threshold did not operate as a routine cap on legitimate personal use, and therefore the “unlimited” claim was not misleading in itself, because the information appeared only within an expandable section and was not directly signposted alongside the main “unlimited” claims, we nevertheless considered that the qualification had not been presented clearly. For those reasons, we concluded that the ad was misleading.
On that point, the ad breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1 and 3.3 (Misleading advertising), and 3.9 and 3.10 (Qualifications).
Action
The ad must not appear again in the form complained of. We told Utility Warehouse Ltd t/a Utility Warehouse to ensure that their unlimited claims were directly qualified with the terms of their fair use policy.
