The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) has published three rulings this week, including updating the wording of a motion against telecom firm Three Mobile from 19 February 2025.
According to the ASA, its previous decision not to uphold the ruling remained.
Vodafone challenged four ads from Three Mobile believing that its claims of “The UK’s Best Value Unlimited iPhone Deal” would be misinterpreted by the public as they were likely to believe it would include factors such as network coverage, trade-in options and warranties.
Three Mobile did not agree with Vodafone and believed it was clear to customers that “best value” meant that the telecom firm offered the lowest recurring monthly charge.
The regulator concluded the claim was not misleading.
It said: “We investigated the ads under CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1 (Misleading advertising), 3.33 and 3.35 (Comparisons with identifiable competitors) and 3.39 (Price comparisons), but did not find them in breach.”
The ASA ruled that no further action was necessary.
Ulezprosperity
The regulator banned two radio ads from investment platform ULEZProsperity.
The ads were heard on radio station LBC in October 2024.
The first ad said: City driving can give you financial returns with ULEZProsperity. Imagine owning a car that earns like a house. You buy it, we rent it back, and you reap the rewards. Become a car lord today and drive returns for 37 months, with a guaranteed sale price at the end. Interested? To start your journey and for terms and conditions, visit ulezprosperity.com. Ulezprosperity.com. Drive prosperity forward”.
The second ad said: “Own a car that earns a return! You buy it, we rent it back, and you reap the rewards. Get info and conditions at ulezprosperity.com”.
Subscribe to Marketing Beat for free
Sign up here to get the latest agency-related news sent straight to your inbox each morning
A complainant challenged the ad on the basis that it breached the code as the company implied that buying a car, which is an unregulated product, had “investment potential” and therefore “should not have been broadcast on a non-specialist radio station”.
Ulezprosperity responded to the ASA’s investigation, highlighting that its product was a commercial arrangement, rather than a financial or regulated investment.
According to the firm, the ads described “fixed, predictable financial returns derived from a rental agreement and a guaranteed buyback price”.
Radiocentre also responded to the watchdog, stating it endorsed the advertisers point and at the time of clearance did not believe the ads implied that it was an investment but rather a “financial benefit from rental”.
The ASA ruled the ads must not be broadcast again in the form complained of on non-specialist stations.
Oceansaver
The final ruling this week upheld a decision against a campaign from cleaning product manufacturer OceanSaver.
Seen on 25 April 2025, the adverts were featured on TV and the manufacturer’s website.
It claimed that its biodegradable dishwasher tablets were plastic-free.
Text on its website listing claimed: “Biodegradable Film. Each pod is made of PVOH film, and even though technically plastic…it’s one of the good plastics that are dissolvable and fully biodegrade!”
Additional text read: “Plastic-free”; “100% plastic-free and contains zero microplastics”; “Zero Plastics. Zero Microplastics”; and “Every product bought makes an impact, with over 2 million pieces of plastic […] saved from our ocean so far”.
The marketing drive was challenged by Ecover and People Against Dirty Holdings on the basis that its claims were misleading, as they understood the dishwasher tablets used a dissolvable film that contained polyvinyl alcohol.
Oceansaver responded to the claims, stating that the word plastic was used by many brands as a synonym for polymer despite the difference between the two.
They explained that polyvinyl alcohol was exempt from the European microplastics restrictions due to its water solubility and because it “did not produce solid microparticles and therefore did not create plastic waste”.
The firm also showed the ASA legislation from the US state of Maine, a peer reviewed journal article, two webpages, an ingredients list for their products and two manufacturer statements.
It also said they would remove the word “fully” from future claims.
Clearcast also responded to the complainant, stating that polyvinyl alcohol was a water-soluble synthetic polymer made from the monomer vinyl alcohol, rather than a plastic.
The watchdog upheld the motion banning the campaign, stating that the marketing drive must not appear again in the form complained of.
