Background
This Ruling forms part of a wider piece of work on environmental claims. These ads were identified for investigation following a complaint received, and intelligence gathering by our Active Ad Monitoring system. See also related rulings published on 3 September
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 ads and complaints 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.
Ad description
A website, www.seascanner.co.uk, for Seascanner seen on 20 March 2025, included a webpage that focused on cruise operator MSC Cruises and stated “MSC World Europa also introduces cutting-edge environmental technology, including an advanced LNG-powered engine, making it one of the most eco-friendly cruise ships afloat”.
The term “eco-friendly” contained a hyperlink that led to a webpage on the same website titled “Eco-Friendly Cruises”. Text stated, “The cruise industry has made giant leaps over the past decade to reduce its environmental impact. Recycling, incinerating and waste processing are now the norm, not the exception. Green tech is also being installed on new ships and retrofitted on older ones [...] the MSC Virtuosa strives to protect marine life, reduce air emissions and optimise energy”.
Issue
Opportunity Green challenged whether the ad, which included the claims “environmental technology” and “one of the most eco-friendly cruise ships” gave a misleading impression about the environmental impact of travel with the advertised cruise ships.
Response
www.cruise.co.uk Ltd t/a Seascanner explained the challenged claims that related to the MSC World Europa, and specifically the sentence being challenged regarding that cruise ship, was taken from publicly-available sources, which included a MSC Cruises press release that outlined the ship’s environmental and sustainability measures.
Seascanner provided information from the press release which detailed the specific aspects of the MSC World Europa which had led it to consider the description of the environmental initiatives in the MSC World Europa’s design to be appropriate. The press release highlighted a range of claimed environmental initiatives implemented which included Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) Propulsion, which was described as causing reductions in sulphur oxides, fine particles, nitrogen oxides (by up to 85%), and greenhouse gas emissions (by up to 20%). It also referred to eight other factors, including Solid Oxide Fuel Cell (SOFC) Technology, Shore Power Plug-In Connectivity, Advanced Wastewater Treatment System, and a Ballast Water Treatment System. Following contact with the ASA, Seascanner reviewed and removed the text “MSC World Europa also introduces cutting-edge environmental technology, including an advanced LNG-powered engine, making it one of the most eco-friendly cruise ships afloat” from their website.
MSC Cruise S.A. t/a MSC Cruises said they had no control over the form of wording used by travel agents in, among other places, their advertising. They had previously provided wording to Seascanner via a press release, and had also submitted wording to a digital platform from which travel agents could take information to use in promotional materials. However, the wording in the challenged claims had not been directly supplied to Seascanner.
Assessment
Upheld
The CAP Code required that the basis of environmental claims, and comparative claims, must be clear. Unqualified claims could mislead if they omitted material information. Marketing communications must not mislead consumers by exaggerating the capability or performance of a product.
Many consumers were increasingly concerned about the environmental impact of activities related to higher-carbon services, such as cruising, and would be interested in seeking out operators that were making an effort to decrease the environmental impact of the holidays they provided. Ads were therefore likely to mislead if they exaggerated the environmental impact of a cruise. We assessed the ad on that basis.
Among the main environmental impacts of cruising were the emission of greenhouse gases (GHG) from the burning of marine fuel, and the effects on marine life of noise pollution and wastewater discharge. The ASA considered that consumers would understand from the ad that the advertised cruise ship, the MSC World Europa, was among the most “eco-friendly” cruise ships available, and that status was attributed to its use of “environmental technology”, such as an “LNG-powered engine”. Further text, hyper-linked to the “eco-friendly” text, explained other steps that cruise ship operators were putting in place to reduce their environmental impact across their fleet, which included new forms of waste management, reduced emissions and the protection of marine life. The overall impression of the ad and the page it linked to was, therefore, that travel with MSC Europa had an environmental focus and was a better option for the environment than cruising on many other vessels.
LNG was a fossil fuel that primarily comprised methane and produced lower levels of carbon dioxide (CO2) and other GHG emissions, such as sulphur oxide and nitrogen oxide, than traditional marine fuel when burned. However, its production and use had other potentially negative environmental impacts, such as methane slip and leakage, which was the emission of unburned methane into the atmosphere, at all stages of the fuel’s life cycle, from production through to burning. We understood methane emissions were making a substantial contribution to climate change. We further understood LNG produced reduced, but still significant, CO2 emissions over its full life cycle, which was not explained in the ad.
The claim “eco-friendly” hyper-linked to another page on the Seascanner website, where it was stated that steps had been taken by some cruise operators to improve waste management, and reduce the impact on marine life by some cruise vessels. However, further detail about the measures in place on the MSC World Europa to explain the claim that it was “one of the most eco-friendly cruise ships afloat” was not provided. We understood MSC Cruises’ ships engaged in the discharge of greywater (from sinks, showers, laundry facilities, and kitchens), blackwater (sewage), ballast water, and water from exhaust gas cleaning systems that removed some emissions from ships’ exhaust stacks, all of which could harm marine life and ecosystems. Furthermore, collisions and underwater noise could also impact some marine species.
Because the ad had not given information to put the impact of LNG into context, or further detail to explain the role and impact of “environmental technology” on board the MSC Europa in comparison with other operators, we concluded the environmental impact of the advertised cruise ship had not been adequately explained and the ad was likely to mislead. We welcomed Seascanner’s assurance the claims had been removed.
The ad breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1, 3.3 (Misleading advertising), 3.11 (Exaggeration), 3.33 (Comparisons with identifiable competitors), 11.1, 11.2, and 11.3 (Environmental claims).
Action
The ad must not appear again in the form complained of. We told www.cruise.co.uk Ltd t/a Seascanner to ensure that ads featuring environmental claims did not mislead. The basis of environmental claims, and comparative claims, must be made clear and all material information must be stated, where the omission of that information was likely to mislead.
CAP Code (Edition 12)
3.1 3.3 3.11 3.33 11.1 11.2 11.3
