A quick review
This quarter we have seen the ASA continuing to scrutinise substantiation for advertising claims, with the Wild Pack ruling highlighting the ASA's strict stance on unsubstantiated health claims and competitor denigration.
Price claims remain an area of focus, especially with the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024 (DMCCA) entering into force. The ASA ruling against Haven shows that businesses need to be very careful how they advertise discounted or low prices, including ensuring that a significant proportion of products are available at that price.
Environmental claims continue to be a priority enforcement area. This quarter, a complaint about greenwashing against TotalEnergies was upheld whereas similar complaints against Barclays Bank plc and Shell UK Ltd were not. Barclays ad was business-to-business and readers would not interpret the message as representative of Barclays’ wider brand activity. Shell's ad did not singularly focus on its environmentally friendly initiatives but also included balancing information about its wider impacts on the environment. Conversely, the TotalEnergies ad did not contextualise its environmentally friendly credentials. In particular, website links in the ad to additional information were not sufficient.
- Date of ruling: 7 April 2025
- Number of complaints: 1 for Barclays Bank plc, 76 for Shell UK Ltd
The ASA investigated ads by Barclays Bank plc and Shell UK Ltd which contained statements around sustainability. Complainants challenged whether the ads were misleading for omitting significant information about Barclays’ contribution to carbon dioxide and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and giving a misleading impression of Shell’s environmental impact.
The Barclays Investment Bank magazine ad featured the headline “POWERING a more sustainable future”, and text beneath stated, “Our team of experts provide a broad spectrum of strategic advice and financing solutions to clients across the energy value chain. From M&A to capital raises and risk management, we're helping power the transition to a low-carbon future”.
The Shell TV ad featured a person walking through different scenes presenting activities Shell was involved in, such as:
- electric vehicle charging points being installed in a street
- an offshore gas rig followed by a kitchen to which the gas from that rig was ultimately delivered
- a laboratory labelled “Energy Transition Skills Hub”, which included scenes of miniature windfarms.
Superimposed text stated, “In 2023, 68% of Shell’s global investments included oil & gas, 23% included low-carbon energy solutions and 9% non-energy products. Shell’s target is to become a net zero emissions (NZE) energy business by 2050”.
Both Barclays and Shell responded to the ASA.
- Barclays highlighted that the ad appeared in The Economist, where readers would have understood the ad was promoting Barclays Investment Bank’s offerings and was not suggesting Barclays did not support clients in high-emitting sectors. It was targeted at senior leadership of Barclays Investment Bank's client base. Sustainability claims were also based on a verifiable strategy.
- Shell stated that the aim of the ad was to highlight how Shell is helping to meet the UK's energy needs, now and in the future, and argued that the ad made it clear that Shell was involved in extracting and supplying gas, as well as future-facing activities such as installing EV chargers.
The ASA did not uphold the complaint in either case. The Barclay's ad was focused on the Investment Bank's operations, which were not available to retail customers and even though they would see the ad, the ASA considered such customers would understand that The Economist is a business-focused publication and would not interpret the message as representative of Barclays’ wider brand activity. The ASA concluded that the omission of information to explain Barclays’ overall contribution to carbon dioxide and greenhouse gas emissions was therefore unlikely to mislead.
The ASA said that Shell's ad did not focus singularly on the environmentally beneficial initiatives and included a mix of higher and lower-carbon aspects of its business. The ad also contextualised claims made, for example by using figures from the Annual Report.
These ads are examples of how organisations can correctly make sustainable claims. The CAP Code states that marketing communications must not mislead consumers by omitting material information, and that where businesses are responsible for a significant amount of harmful emissions, ads which reference specific environmentally beneficial initiatives are more likely to mislead if they do not include balancing information about the business’s significant ongoing contribution to emissions or other environmental harm.
- Date of ruling: 7 April 2025
The ASA investigated a paid-for X post by TotalEnergies SE featuring an introductory caption that stated, “Uncover how TotalEnergies’ electricity start-up accelerator program has supported start-ups like Nash Renewables”. A video detailed TotalEnergies' work with the company and on-screen text later stated, “THE ROADS TO CARBON NEUTRAL […] A SPECIAL PRESENTATION BY”, followed by the TotalEnergies logo and the text “Pioneers for 100 years”. The ad featured wind turbines, office workers, and contained the NASH co-founder's testimonial about how TotalEnergies' backing had "brought our company massively forward".
The complainant challenged whether the ad was misleading because it omitted material information about the overall environmental impact of TotalEnergies’ business activities.
TotalEnergies told the ASA that the ad was part of an episode in their series, The Roads to Carbon Neutral. The series aimed to highlight case studies demonstrating TotalEnergies’ profile as a multi-energy company, committed to transitioning towards increasingly decarbonised sources of energy.
The ad focused on Nash Renewables, their participation in TotalEnergies’ business start-up accelerator programme, and was targeted towards certain people. Whilst the ad did not contain further information about TotalEnergies’ business practices, their website made it clear they were involved in a mixture of oil, gas and renewable energies, and TotalEnergies claimed the ad did not include any broad or ambiguous ‘green’ claims.
The ASA upheld the complaint. The main issue was that the ASA considered the advert's overall impression was that a significant proportion of TotalEnergies' business was focused on renewable energies. However, 90% of its 2023 sales came from petrol and gas. The proportion of TotalEnergies' business that comprised lower-carbon energy products was material information that should have been included in the ad. Their targets for 2030 included 30% oil sales, 50% gas, and 20% low-carbon molecules and electricity.
Despite further information being available on TotalEnergies' website via links in the ad, the ASA noted that more contextual information about their wider activities could have been included within the ad itself, given its length (30 seconds) and character count (117 out of 280 allowed).
TotalEnergies aimed the ad at individuals interested in energy technology, innovation, business opinion leaders, and investors. However, the keyword and interest-based targeting methods resulted in a broader audience, including general consumers and business audiences. This targeting did not ensure delivery to those with significantly different knowledge levels compared to a general audience.
The ad was banned by the ASA and serves as a good example of how not to make sustainable claims. By focusing exclusively on lower-carbon energy projects without providing context about the proportion of TotalEnergies' overall business model comprising these initiatives, the advertisement omitted material information and was therefore misleading.
- Date of ruling: 19 March 2025
The ASA investigated a paid-for Facebook ad and a website for holiday company Haven Leisure Ltd (Haven). The Facebook ad included text that stated, “Penally Court 4 nights from £55*” and small print at the bottom which stated, “*Price based on a Hideaway break in selected grades outside of school holidays". The ad featured a link to the website which stated “Accommodation at Penally Court. Caravans 4 nights from £59”.
The complainant was unable to find dates at the advertised prices, and challenged whether both price claims were misleading. Haven said that, at the time the ad was seen, there should have been five dates available to book for the advertised price points, but only one break was available to book as two had sold out and two had been incorrectly priced too high. When making the price claim, Haven had not considered that there was a low availability of caravans at the Penally Court Holiday Park compared to their other parks, so the advertised price points could have sold out after only one booking.
The ASA upheld the complaint, considering that consumers would have expected that a significant proportion of 4-night breaks at that holiday park would have been available to book from £55 and £59, depending on which ad they saw.
Because of the small print wording about "outside of school holidays", consumers would also have expected these prices to be available across a range of dates.
The ads were banned and serve as a reminder for businesses to ensure that a significant proportion of breaks are available at the advertised price, and potentially across a range of dates, when using “from” price claims.
The ruling is one of the latest from the ASA on misleading price claims, reminding businesses of the importance of substantiating price claims with the DMCCA coming into force.
- Date of ruling: 16 April 2025
The ASA investigated two Instagram posts for the dogfood company Wild Pack, both featuring the owner Georgia Toffolo.
In both posts, Georgia Toffolo referred to major pet food manufacturers as "The Kibble Cartel" and made several serious allegations about industry practices. Four specific issues were assessed by the ASA, all of which were upheld.
The first complaint concerned the claim that vets are paid up to £30,000 to promote kibble. Wild Pack relied solely on anonymous anecdotal evidence from veterinary practice staff, which the ASA found insufficient to substantiate such a serious allegation.
The second issue related to claims that glycotoxins in "ultra processed" kibble "lead to cancer, diabetes, kidney failure." Despite Wild Pack submitting several scientific papers, the ASA determined that none provided adequate evidence to support the direct causal relationship implied in the advertisement. While some evidence indicated the presence of glycotoxins in processed dog food, it did not demonstrate that these posed significant health risks to dogs.
Third, Wild Pack claimed that "chicken meal can legally be made from animals which are already dying, dead or diseased" in reference to Purina products. Wild Pack admitted this claim was based on US practices rather than UK regulations. The ASA ruled that, as a UK-based business selling to UK customers, Wild Pack needed to substantiate claims with UK-relevant evidence, which they failed to do.
Finally, the ASA ruled that the advertisements denigrated UK Pet Food and major manufacturers by characterising the industry as "corrupt," a "shadowy world," and "rotten to the core." The repeated use of the term "Kibble Cartel," alongside imagery of drug lord Pablo Escobar and allegations of dishonesty, went beyond objective comparison and into harmful denigration.
As a result, the ASA has banned the ads in their current form and instructed Wild Pack to ensure future advertisements do not make unsubstantiated health risk claims, allegations about vets being paid to promote dog food, or claims about ingredient provenance without proper evidence. Wild Pack must also refrain from denigrating competitors.
The ruling highlights the importance of having robust scientific evidence when making health claims about pet food and maintaining professional standards when critiquing competitors, even in social media marketing.
- Date of ruling: 23 April 2025
The ASA investigated two paid-for social media ads, two website landing pages, a radio ad, a billboard and an email, for Octopus Energy Ltd. British Gas Trading Ltd challenged whether the savings claims were misleading, and if the ads adequately signposted consumers to verification information.
Octopus explained the ads were designed to highlight the potential savings that a significant majority of consumers currently on standard tariffs could achieve. They did not claim to be the cheapest supplier in every scenario or for every tariff type and were willing to amend the ads.
On the first complaint concerning misleading savings claims, the ASA agreed that consumers would interpret Octopus's statements to mean that energy bills would be cheaper for most households if they switched to Octopus from any provider. While Octopus provided data showing they offered the cheapest Standard Variable Tariff (SVT) among major suppliers, with 71-80% of non-Octopus customers being on SVTs, the ASA found the ads did not clarify that the savings claims applied only to consumers on non-Octopus SVTs who switched to an Octopus SVT.
The ASA noted that consumers on fixed or tracker tariffs with other suppliers might not save money by switching to Octopus, and in some cases, might actually save more money by switching from Octopus to another provider's fixed tariff. The ASA also found claims that Octopus was "the only large supplier to price meaningfully below the Ofgem Energy Price Cap" and "always below price cap prices" misleading as they applied only to SVTs, not all Octopus products.
On the second complaint about verification information, the ASA upheld this for five of the seven advertisements. Radio and billboard ads properly directed consumers to where they could verify claims, but social media ads and emails failed to adequately signpost verification information. The "Learn More" buttons in social media ads were deemed insufficient as specific signposts, and an email which made claims without providing any link to verification data. Octopus said this was an error and would put extra checks in place on similar claims in the future to ensure appropriate links are included.
The ASA has banned the advertisements in their current form and instructed Octopus to ensure future marketing includes adequate substantiation for claims, makes the basis of claims clear, and ensures comparative claims are verifiable.
