Background
On 7 April 2025, the Advertising Codes were updated to reflect the revocation and restatement of the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 (CPRs – the legislation from which the majority of the CAP and BCAP rules on misleading advertising derived) by the Unfair Commercial Practices provisions in the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024 (DMCCA).
On that date, the wording of a number of the rules in the Advertising Codes was changed to reflect relevant changes introduced by the DMCCA on 6 April 2025. Given that the complaint that formed the subject of this ruling was received before 7 April 2025, the ASA considered the ad(s) and complaint under the wording of the rules that existed prior to 7 April 2025, and the Ruling (and references to rules within it) should therefore be read in line with this wording, available here – CAP Code and BCAP Code.
Summary of Council decision:
Three issues were investigated, all of which were Upheld.
Ad description
A TV ad and a YouTube ad for We Buy Any Car, seen in January 2025:
a. The TV ad showed a grey scene with a man standing next to his car, whilst a prospective buyer unhappily pulled at the car's windscreen wiper. Text in the voice-over stated, "Robbie could get an offer from another car buying site or sell direct to We Buy Any Car". The scene then turned colourful and green with a We Buy Any Car branded building in the background and showed Robbie waving at the sales representative as she happily looked at his car. The scene became grey again and showed the original prospective buyer kicking the tyres of Robbie's car, shaking his head and gesturing 'no', and text in the voice-over stated, "A dealer could come to his home, then decide not to buy it. Or he could save time with a guaranteed sale and get back to his cupcakes". Small text at the bottom of the screen stated, “Subject to verifying the actual condition & history of the car. Admin Fee may apply. Webuyanycar.com/info”. The scene turned green again and the We Buy Any Car representative shook hands with Robbie as he handed her the keys to his car. Text in the voice-over stated, "Proper rubbish or proper tasty?".
Text at the end stated, "To get a quote in 30 seconds, enter your reg number now at webuyanycar.com" and the brand logo was shown.
b. The YouTube ad, seen on We Buy Any Car's own YouTube channel, featured the same content as ad (a).
Issue
CarWow Ltd and Motorway Online Ltd challenged whether the ads misleadingly implied that:
1. it was quicker to sell a car on We Buy Any Car than on competitor websites; and
2. selling a car on competitor websites was not guaranteed.
Motorway Online Ltd also challenged whether:
3. those comparative claims were verifiable.
Response
1. & 2. We Buy Any Car Ltd did not consider that the ads made comparisons with identifiable competitors. They stated that the used car sales market was large and diverse with no dominant players, rather than small and highly specialised. They said that the ads’ references to “other buying sites” and “dealers” were generic. The ads did not include any unqualified superlative claims, which would have justified viewing the ad through the lens of a comparison against possible competitors. They therefore did not consider it necessary to hold evidence relating to the speed at which consumers could sell their car through other car buying services, or as to whether other services offered guaranteed sales.
They added that CarWow and Motorway Online (Motorway) were not, in any case, competitors (identifiable or otherwise) to We Buy Any Car because both acted as intermediaries connecting consumers with a network of third-party dealers, whereas We Buy Any Car was a direct purchaser of used vehicles from consumers. They stated that, unlike We Buy Any Car, CarWow did not physically inspect cars. CarWow also purchased vehicles from the motor trade, whereas We Buy Any Car purchased from consumers only. They said that Motorway was an e-commerce platform, connecting dealers with sellers. They said that both CarWow and Motorway’s revenues were generated through dealer-facing purchase fees, so their role was strictly as marketplace facilitators.
With regard to point 1, while We Buy Any Car did not consider the claim to be a comparison with identifiable competitors, they stated that their sales process was, nonetheless, significantly faster than that of either CarWow or Motorway. They provided data showing that the average time it took to receive an online quote from We Buy Any Car was five seconds. The average drive time to a We Buy Any Car branch was 11.1 minutes (January to June 2024), and the average appointment including transaction time took 25 minutes. Same-day and walk-in sales were also common. By contrast, they said CarWow’s website stated that the consumer must meet the requirements for listing approval, enter into a daily auction, be contacted by the dealer within 48 hours, arrange collection and inspection (as well as a potential negotiation); and that selling a vehicle via CarWow would take significantly longer than selling through We Buy Any Car.
On that point, Clearcast said that ad (a) did not state or imply that selling a car through We Buy Any Car was quicker than via competitor websites. Instead, the concept of time-saving was framed around the guaranteed nature of We Buy Any Car’s sales process, which contrasted with the potential for wasted time if a dealer from another service inspected a car and then declined to buy it. They said that the core message of the ad was the certainty and simplicity of the transaction with We Buy Any Car, which contrasted with the uncertainty of private or dealer sales. They considered that was explicit in the voice-over statement “A dealer could come to his home, then decide not to buy it. Or he could save time with a guaranteed sale and get back to his cupcakes”. It underscored the assurance of a sale, not the speed of the transaction. They said that the ad did not include any comparative metrics or language suggesting We Buy Any Car was quicker.
They confirmed that they had received substantiation from We Buy Any Car showing the time, from January to June 2024, it typically took to obtain a quote. They had not asked for evidence relating to how long it took to sell a car with We Buy Any Car’s competitors, as they considered that the claim about the guaranteed sale was the main message of the ad.
With regard to point 2, We Buy Any Car said that they guaranteed to buy cars, subject only to specific, limited conditions which were fraud, missing documentation, or the seller not being the legal owner. They said they offered to complete the sale following 99.84% of physical inspections from November 2024 to January 2025. While they did not believe the ad made a comparison with identifiable competitors in relation to the guarantee of a sale, they believed that CarWow and Motorway dealers frequently renegotiated or cancelled transactions post-inspection. They referenced both companies’ terms and conditions and consumer reviews to support that view.
On that point, Clearcast said they had received assurances that We Buy Any Car would purchase any car, no matter the condition, as long as the correct documentation was supplied. Clearcast understood that although We Buy Any Car could change the quote price if information supplied by the seller was inaccurate, they would never withdraw an offer to purchase, meaning the seller’s time would not be wasted.
Clearcast stated that We Buy Any Car was therefore distinct in offering a direct and guaranteed purchase, whereas CarWow and Motorway only facilitated potential sales through third parties. Therefore, the ad’s implication of a guaranteed sale through We Buy Any Car was factually accurate and not misleading.
3. We Buy Any Car did not consider the claims to be comparisons with identifiable competitors, in which case CAP and BCAP Code rules 3.35 would not apply; it therefore would not be necessary to make verification information available to consumers. However, they stated that further information about the claims made in the ads was available on their “Online Terms” webpage, which was clearly signposted in the ads. Those terms outlined the speed and process of quote generation and appointment booking, purchase guarantees, branch accessibility and average drive times, in relation to We Buy Any Car only, because they considered it was not necessary to provide verification information.
Clearcast said the claims in ad (a) were verifiable, with all relevant information available publicly on We Buy Any Car’s website, or on Motorway and CarWow’s websites with regard to their terms and conditions. The ad included a disclaimer which stated, “Subject to verifying the actual condition & history of the car. Admin Fee may apply”. It also included a website address which set out details such as transaction speed, payment timeframes, and proximity to branches, as well as more detailed terms and conditions.
Assessment
1 & 2. Upheld
The CAP and BCAP Codes stated that comparisons with identifiable competitors must not mislead, or be likely to mislead consumers about either the advertised product or the competing product(s).
The ASA considered that the claim in the ads that “Robbie could get an offer from another car buying site or sell direct to We Buy Any Car” would be understood by viewers as drawing a direct comparison between We Buy Any Car and other car buying websites. We also considered that the visuals, which contrasted the grey, monotone world of other car buying sites, and the bright, colourful and friendly world of We Buy Any Car, further emphasised that this was a comparison between the experience consumers would have with We Buy Any Car and the consumer experience with other car buying websites. We considered the overall impression created by the claims, the visuals and the simple scenarios presented was that We Buy Any Car was comparing itself to other car buying sites.
We understood that the used car sales market was large and diverse. However, we considered that did not preclude consumers from being able to identify one or more competitors to We Buy Any Car. In addition, by specifically referencing “another car buying site” as a point of comparison in the ads, we considered they signposted that the comparison was with that part of the market. We understood that there were several car buying sites and considered that the majority of consumers viewing the ads would be able to identify at least one of them. Additionally, while Motorway and CarWow’s business models were slightly different from We Buy Any Car’s, the intended audience of the ads was consumers who were considering selling their car. Therefore, they were likely to view any car buying site through which they could sell their car as a competitor to We Buy Any Car, regardless of whether the site acted as an intermediary with dealers (such as Motorway or CarWow) or was a direct purchaser of cars (like We Buy Any Car).
We therefore considered that the comparisons were with identifiable competitors (which included Motorway and CarWow) and therefore We Buy Any Car should have held evidence for the comparative claims, relating both to themselves and to all the relevant competitors.
We considered that, because the ad juxtaposed the idea of a dealer coming to Robbie’s home and deciding not to buy the car, with the “guaranteed sale” offered by We Buy Any Car, it implied that a sale through other car buying sites was not guaranteed, whereas a sale through We Buy Any Car was. We also considered viewers would interpret the claim “Or he could save time […] and get back to his cupcakes" to mean that selling a car with We Buy Any Car would be quicker than with other car buying sites because of the guarantee, and that consumers would “save time” by using them. The contrast between the “dealer” in the ad inspecting the windscreen wipers and kicking the tyres of the car and the efficiency of the We Buy Any Car sales representative further added to the impression that speed was being compared. We considered the ads therefore made the comparative claims that selling a car on competitor websites was not guaranteed and that selling a car to We Buy Any Car was quicker.
We Buy Any Car and Clearcast provided information from Motorway and CarWow’s terms and conditions and consumer reviews to support their claim that selling a car to We Buy Any Car website was guaranteed, but sales on competitor websites were not.
We understood that consumers could get a quote to sell their car on the We Buy Any Car website by providing information about the car and its condition. Consumers then took their car for a physical inspection. We Buy Any Car considered they had demonstrated they guaranteed a sale because they offered to purchase vehicles following 99.84% of physical inspections between November 2024 and January 2025. We acknowledged that represented a significant percentage of sales, and we understood that the occasions where We Buy Any Car did not offer a sale on a vehicle over that time period related to limited circumstances, such as where the car had been obtained fraudulently or the owner did not have correct paperwork. However, the claim in the ad was comparative, and they had not provided data which showed that their competitors did not also offer to facilitate to purchase cars, at a similar point in the buying process, at a similar rate. We therefore considered that the information provided was not adequate to substantiate the comparative claim that sales to We Buy Any Car were guaranteed, but sales via other car-buying sites were not.
With regard to the speed of purchase, We Buy Any Car cited information from CarWow and Motorway’s websites. While the Motorway website indicated the process could take nine to 17 days, the CarWow website did not state a time period. We considered the information provided was not adequate to substantiate the comparative speed claim. We also had not seen information in relation to any other competitors.
Because the evidence was not adequate to substantiate the comparative claims, we concluded that the ads were misleading.
On points 1 and 2, ad (a) breached BCAP Code rules 3.1 (Misleading Advertising), 3.9 (Substantiation), and 3.33 and 3.35 (Comparisons with identifiable competitors).
On points 1 and 2, ad (b) breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1 (Misleading Advertising), 3.7 (Substantiation), and 3.33 and 3.35 (Comparisons with identifiable competitors).
3. Upheld
The CAP and BCAP Codes required comparisons with identifiable competitors to be verifiable. That meant that an ad which featured a comparison with an identifiable competitor or competitors needed to include, or direct a consumer to, sufficient information to allow them to understand the comparison, and be able to check the claims were accurate.
The ads included text which signposted consumers to a page on the We Buy Any Car website, which included information on the speed of purchase and guaranteed sale claims. However, the information provided on that web page related only to We Buy Any Car, and not to any of their competitors.
Because the ads did not provide sufficient information to allow consumers to verify the comparative claims, we concluded that they were misleading and breached the Codes.
On that point, ad (a) breached BCAP Code rule 3.35 (Comparisons with identifiable competitors), and ad (b) breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rule 3.35 (Comparisons with identifiable competitors).
Action
The ads must not appear again in the form complained of. We told We Buy Any Car Ltd not to make comparisons with identifiable competitors if they did not hold adequate comparative evidence to substantiate the claims. We also told them to ensure such claims were verifiable.
