The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) has upheld a ruling against two product listings posted by telecommunications company Vodafone.
The product listings for two SIM cards were seen on the firm’s UK site during November and December 2024.
Text on the listing for the Unlimited Plus SIM stated “Save £240. Monthly £23. Offer ends 19 December”. A previous version of the ad said: “Unlimited Plus. Black Friday. Save £312. Monthly £20. Offer ends 02 December”.
Copy on the Unlimited Max SIM
reads: “Black Friday: Save £312. Monthly £23. Offer ends 2 December”. Another version of the advertisement read: “Unlimited Max. 6 months half price. Monthly £18. £36pm after 6 months. Offer ends 28 November”.
The listings were investigated by the watchdog after it received a complaint from EE.
Vodafone responded to the ASA’s investigations, highlighting that during the promotional period, the Unlimited Plus was on offer for 33% of the time and the Unlimited Max was on offer for 49% of the time.
Subscribe to Marketing Beat for free
Sign up here to get the latest agency-related news sent straight to your inbox each morning
It said: “The reference price for the product in ad (a) was £33 while the reference price for the product in ad (b) was £36. Those were the prices against which the savings claims of £240 in ad (a) and £312 in ad (b) were made against.”
The company acknowledges that the reference price was not the immediately preceding price, as both products had previously been on offer during a different promotion.
However, for both products, ot acknowledged that the reference price was not the immediately preceding price. That was because both products had previously been on offer at a discounted price in a different promotion.
The firm acknowledges the CAP guidance that stated the product should be returned to its original price before being reduced again.
The ASA said: “We considered the quoted savings claims for both products had not been made against the immediately preceding prices at which the products were sold at when the ads appeared.
“Consequently, that meant the quoted saving of £240 in ad (a) and £312 in ad (b) were not genuine. Because we had not seen evidence that the savings claim in both ads represented a genuine saving, we concluded that the ads were misleading.”
It upheld the motion banning both listings, stating they must not appear in their current forms again.
