Background
Summary of Council decision:
Two issues were investigated, both of which were Upheld.
Ad description
Two holiday listings seen on the website for loveholidays, www.loveholidays.com:
a. The first listing, seen on 20 March 2025, featured details for a hotel and return flights to New York. Text stated “£1,090pp [crossed out] £749pp”.
b. The second listing, seen on 24 March 2025, featured details for a hotel and return flights to Tenerife. Text stated “£1,119pp [crossed out] £699pp”.
Issue
- One complainant, who found that when they tried to book the holiday featured in ad (a) the price increased, challenged whether the price claim in ad (a) was misleading.
- One complainant, who found that when they tried to book the holiday featured in ad (b) the price increased, challenged whether the price claim in ad (b) was misleading.
Response
1. & 2. We Love Holidays Ltd t/a loveholidays stated that their website received a very large number of daily visits and regretted the small number of occasions when search results appeared out-of-date. They stated that the vast majority of their prices did not change and were available to book at the price quoted. Their website searched over 42,000 hotels and 99% of all UK flights, resulting in billions of possible holiday combinations. Flight data on their website was updated continuously throughout the day, and accommodation data was updated three times a day. In that context, they believed they had reasonable systems in place to ensure the prices displayed on their website were as accurate as possible when considering the dynamic nature of the travel industry and their use of third-party suppliers.
Loveholidays acknowledged that the stated price in ad (a) was not up-to-date when it was seen. They stated that they were reliant on third-party advertisers for flight and hotel pricing, which could change rapidly. They believed a delay in their system in updating accommodation information may have caused the holiday to have been advertised at the incorrect price.
Loveholidays also acknowledged that the complainant had experienced a price increase when attempting to book the holiday seen in ad (b). They stated that was because their pricing was dynamic and subject to change based on third-party suppliers. The lower price continued to be displayed after the complainant had made their booking due to a delay in their website’s system updating the supplier’s new pricing.
Loveholidays stated that they were taking steps to prevent similar issues from occurring in future. That included improving the speed and accuracy of price updates on their website, working with third-party suppliers to reduce the time it took for loveholidays to be notified of price changes, and reviewing their advertising practices to ensure that pricing information was presented clearly and accurately.
Assessment
1. & 2. Upheld
The ads were holiday listings on the loveholidays website and included details such as the hotel, travel dates, and board basis. The price in ad (a) was advertised as “£749pp [per person]” and the price in ad (b) was advertised as “£699pp [per person]”. The ASA considered that, in the absence of any qualifications, consumers would understand the price claims in both ads to mean those prices were available at the time they viewed the ad, and that amount was the price they would pay per person to book that holiday. This impression was reinforced by the crossed-out reference price featured in each ad, which suggested that the advertised price was a static offer that represented a price saving compared to the normal cost of the holiday.
However, we understood that when the complainants attempted to book the respective holidays online, the price of the holidays increased. They were informed this was due to live pricing, which was subject to change. We further understood that despite the price increase, the holidays continued to be advertised on the loveholidays website at the original lower price after the complainants attempted to book them.
We acknowledged that travel marketers often dealt with third-party suppliers, and that prices in the travel sector were dynamic and could vary. However, CAP guidance on “Travel marketing: Working with third parties” stated that marketers should take reasonable steps to reduce the likelihood of consumers being misled. For example, marketers should ensure that prices that were subject to change were described as “from” prices and make clear in their advertising the date of the last price update. Because accommodation price data was not updated on the loveholidays website in real time, we expected their marketing communications to make clear when the last price update was, and that the price featured was liable to change. However, that information was not included in the ads. It was also unclear how the reference price and associated savings claims featured in both ads had been calculated, given that the prices on loveholidays’ website were frequently subject to change.
We understood that loveholidays believed a delay in their website’s system may have prevented the prices seen in ads (a) and (b) from being updated after a higher price had been quoted to the complainants. Nevertheless, they were responsible for taking reasonable steps to ensure their stated prices were genuine and did not mislead.
Because the holidays could not be booked for the prices advertised in ad (a) and ad (b), and those lower prices continued to be advertised after the price had increased, we concluded that the ads were misleading.
The ad breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1 (Misleading advertising), 3.7 (Substantiation) and 3.17 (Prices).
Action
The ads must not appear again in their current form. We told We Love Holidays Ltd t/a loveholidays to ensure that advertised prices were based on genuine prices available to consumers. We also told them to take steps to reduce the likelihood of consumers being misled, for example, by describing prices that were subject to change as “from” prices and stating when those prices were last updated.
