Our approved summary
The ad compared 30 pods with 50 rival pods without making this clear, and claimed rival pods went to landfill without proof while omitting the rival's recycling scheme (CAP 3.1, 3.7, 3.38).
Upheld by the ASA. Ruling published by the ASA on .
The ad compared 30 pods with 50 rival pods without making this clear, and claimed rival pods went to landfill without proof while omitting the rival's recycling scheme (CAP 3.1, 3.7, 3.38).
What to do next
More ASA rulings explained
- The claim that over half of shops in Liverpool sold untaxed or counterfeit tobacco was not backed by enough evidence (CAP 3.1, 3.7).
- Claims compared prices and services with competitors without evidence, and implied partnerships without proof, making the comparisons unverifiable and misleading (CAP 3.1, 3.7, 3.34).
Official ruling
The official ruling is the definitive version. Mystery Slopper is not affiliated with the ASA.