Our approved summary
The ads compared services with named competitors without enough clear information to verify the claims, so the comparisons were misleading and unverifiable (CAP 3.1, 3.7, 3.34).
Upheld by the ASA. Ruling published by the ASA on .
The ads compared services with named competitors without enough clear information to verify the claims, so the comparisons were misleading and unverifiable (CAP 3.1, 3.7, 3.34).
What to do next
More ASA rulings explained
- The claim that 95% agreed the product delivers vitamin D quickly and efficiently was misleading because no evidence showed it absorbed vitamin D fast into the body (CAP 3.1, 3.7).
- The ad said customers saved money compared to usual prices but did not prove those prices were regularly charged so the savings claim was misleading (CAP 3.1, 3.7, 3.17).
Official ruling
The official ruling is the definitive version. Mystery Slopper is not affiliated with the ASA.