Background
This Ruling forms part of a wider piece of work on environmental claims in the travel agent sector. These ads were identified for investigation following intelligence gathering by our Active Ad Monitoring system, which uses AI to proactively search for online ads that might break the rules. See also related rulings published on 9 September 2026.
Ad description
Two paid-for Google ads for loveholidays, an online travel agent, seen on 15 July 2026:
a. The first ad stated “Green Garden Eco Resort. Book Green Garden Eco Resort Today With Deposits From £25pp. ATOL Protected”.
b. The second ad stated “Marvida Family Eco Hotel […] End of Summer Deal With Up to £400 Off Holidays. That’s The Power Of loveholidays”.
Issue
The ASA challenged whether the basis of the claim “Eco Resort” in ad (a) and the claim “Eco Hotel” in ad (b) was clear.
Response
We Love Holidays Ltd t/a loveholidays said they aggregated and resold third-party accommodation supplied by independent hotel and resort operators, and did not own, operate, or manage the accommodation featured in the ads. The resort and hotel names in the ads were the trading names provided by their suppliers. In each case the term “Eco” was part of the accommodation’s name, and not an environmental claim formulated, adopted, or endorsed by loveholidays. They did not make any separate representation about the environmental credentials of either property, and the ads only reproduced the property names for identification purposes, in keeping with standard practice for an accommodation retailer displaying third-party inventory.
Assessment
Upheld
The CAP Code required that the basis of environmental claims must be clear. Unqualified claims could mislead if they omitted material information.
The ASA considered consumers would interpret the claims “Eco Resort” and “Eco Hotel” in the ads as meaning the advertised accommodation had some environmental characteristics or benefits. While the claims were part of the accommodations’ names, we considered they would also be understood as a description of each accommodation.
The term “eco” did not have a standardised meaning. Its basis when used as shorthand to describe the environmental characteristics or benefits of accommodation was therefore likely to differ between accommodation providers. Accordingly, consumers needed sufficient information about the basis of such a claim to understand what environmental characteristics or benefits were being referred to. That information would enable them to assess the relevance and significance of those characteristics when deciding whether or not to proceed on their consumer journey.
We understood from the websites for the accommodations that they had taken a number of steps to reduce their environmental impact.
We understood the resort advertised in ad (a) had eliminated single-use plastics from its operations, used energy-efficient LED lighting and motion sensors to decrease electricity usage, and avoided the use of harmful chemicals. We understood the hotel advertised in ad (b) used: waste separation and recycling; processes to reduce water and electricity usage; and processes to reduce food waste.
However, that information had not been clearly explained in either ad. While the ads were short-form and subject to space limitation, there was no indication of steps taken by the marketer to provide the information by other means (for example, by clearly and prominently setting it out on the linked landing page, one-click away), so that consumers could proceed with their consumer journey in an informed manner.
For those reasons we concluded the ads had not met the requirements of the Code.
The ads breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1, 3.3 (Misleading advertising), and 11.1 (Environmental claims).
Action
The ads must be amended or withdrawn. We told We Love Holidays Ltd t/a loveholidays to ensure they made the basis of any environmental claims clear.
