Note: This advice is given by the CAP Executive about non-broadcast advertising. It does not constitute legal advice. It does not bind CAP, CAP advisory panels or the Advertising Standards Authority.
Often, consumers are required to pay delivery charges when making purchases, particularly when shopping online. Where marketing communications state the price of a product, any delivery, freight, or postal charges which apply must also be clearly stated in the ad. If the charge cannot reasonably be calculated in advance, the ad should still state that the charges are payable (rule 3.20).
Delivery costs are also often considered material information (rules 3.3 and 3.4.4). This is information that will affect a consumer’s decision about whether to purchase the product. Therefore, if an advertiser is stating prices in an ad, or if it would otherwise be misleading to omit delivery charges, then the advertiser must state any which apply.
Omitting, hiding, or presenting material information in an unclear, unintelligible, ambiguous, or untimely manner is a breach of rule 3.3 of the CAP Code (VistaPrint Ltd, 4 July 2012). See also 'Misleading advertising'.
What if the charges apply per product?
What if the charges apply per order?
What if the charge cannot be calculated in advance?
What if the advertiser cannot deliver to all locations or must charge more for certain locations?
What about ‘Free Delivery’ claims?
What if the charges apply per product
If delivery charges apply per product and consumers have no option but to pay these to receive the product, this becomes a non-optional charge that must be included in the stated price (rule 3.18). If the delivery charge is known in advance it should be stated. The ASA considered an ad for shoes to be misleading because the ad stated the price of the product but did not make the total price, including the delivery fee, clear (Groupon, 30 May 2018).
If consumers can reasonably obtain the product without incurring the delivery charge, such as by collecting the item from a store, it may suffice to say that delivery charges apply, and to include the cost in a sufficiently prominent qualification. However, it may not be acceptable to place the applicable delivery charges in a footnote if there are only one or a very limited number of collection points, if this means that most customers would need to pay for delivery.
What if the charges apply per order?
If the charges apply per order, then it is likely to be acceptable to state that these charges apply close to any stated prices, and to state the associated cost in a prominent qualification.
An ad for event tickets on the Get Me In website stated, "Prices may vary from face value and exclude order & delivery fees [hyperlink] (applicable per transaction)”. The ASA considered that the UK delivery fee could have been calculated in advance, and as such the ad should have stated the applicable UK delivery charge close to the ticket price. Because it did not, the ad was misleading (GETMEIN! Ltd, 07 March 2018).
In the case of an e-tailing website, it may be acceptable to state the relevant charges on a separate page, provided this page is clearly linked or signposted to from the stated price of the product. Charges that are only revealed during the checkout process are likely to breach the rules.
Ads must make clear if multiple delivery fees apply. In 2019, an ad for Deliveroo implied that customers could place orders from different restaurants and have them delivered together. The ad was considered likely to mislead consumers because it did not make clear that a separate delivery charge would apply to each order from each restaurant (Deliveroo, 04 December 2019).
What if the charge cannot be calculated in advance?
Sometimes it is not possible to calculate the delivery charge in advance, perhaps because it depends on the size and/or weight of the order, the amount ordered, the delivery location, or other unknown factors. In these circumstances, marketers need to state that such charges are payable (rule 3.20), and must make clear both that the charge is excluded from the advertised price, and how those charges will be calculated (rule 3.19).
What if the advertiser cannot deliver to all locations or must charge more for certain locations?
If an advertiser cannot offer delivery to some locations, this must be made clear upfront. Claims which imply that a marketer can deliver to areas that they cannot must be avoided (Achica Ltd, 6 August 2014).
As the UK is made up of England, Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and multiple islands off the coast of each, an absolute claim to offer “[Free/£X/Next Day] UK Delivery” should mean that the marketer offers the advertised delivery service to all of these locations (Noa & Nani Ltd, 18 November 2015). If, for whatever reason, a company is unable to extend their delivery service to certain postcodes, the islands, or the Highlands, then an absolute “UK delivery” claim is likely to mislead. Qualifying this with exclusions is unlikely to be sufficient as this will result in a misleading contradiction rather than a clarification (contrary to rule 3.9).
Because the Highlands of Scotland are part of the UK mainland, ads should not state “UK Mainland Delivery” if this excludes the Highlands, or any other location that falls within the major landmass of Great Britain. It may be acceptable to refer to the UK mainland when excluding the islands and Northern Ireland, providing the ad clearly qualifies the claim to make this clear. However, “Mainland GB” is a better claim to use if Northern Ireland is excluded.
For more information on this topic, see CAP’s Enforcement Notice about Advertised Delivery Restrictions and Surcharges.
What about 'free delivery' claims?
Marketers must ensure that free delivery claims are accurate. An ad which stated "... we'll deliver your tickets for free too!*" was misleading because, although ticket collection was free, there was a charge for delivery (Click Travel, 14 February 2018). If consumers can pay for delivery in advance, for example by paying a set price for unlimited next day delivery for a year, delivery should not be referred to as “free”. In one case, the ASA upheld complaints about the claim “free delivery” because the service offered consumers a certain number of deliveries for an up-front fee. Although the service did represent a saving compared to the standard individual delivery charge, delivery should not have been described as “free” (Ozsale Pty Ltd, 12 December 2018).
Delivery offers that are subject to exclusions or restrictions on availability should avoid absolute claims and instead make clear the limitations from the outset. Absolute claims like “FREE DELIVERY ON ALL ORDERS” or “FREE NEXT DAY DELIVERY ON ALL OF YOUR ORDERS THIS MONTH” are only likely to be acceptable when there are no restrictions (Ebuyer UK Ltd, 17 December 2014). Qualifications which detail exclusions are likely to be viewed as misleadingly contradicting an absolute claim, rather than clarifying it (rule 3.9).
If delivery exclusions or restrictions are based on location, the ad should make this explicitly clear. It is likely to be acceptable to make claims like “Free Delivery to Selected Locations” or “Free Delivery on Some Orders”, providing they are clearly and prominently qualified with clarifications about which locations are (or are not) included.
Similarly, if other conditions or restrictions apply, which mean that free delivery is only available on certain orders, this must be made clear. For example, if a minimum spend applies this will need to be made explicitly clear in the headline claim (e.g. “Free delivery on orders over £X”). If marketers cannot also offer this for all postcodes, that will need to be made clear in the headline claim as well (Roomstogo Ltd, 19 June 2013).
In 2023, Gymshark stated ‘Free Delivery available for orders above £65…ORDER BY 9PM Monday - Friday for next day delivery…’ This was deemed misleading, as Gymshark did not make clear that ‘next day’ meant the day after the item was shipped, rather than the day after the order was placed by the customer (Gymshark Ltd, 08 February 2023).
What if the product is free?
Marketers advertising a product as ‘free’ may charge the un-inflated cost of postage for the item provided it is made clear upfront that this charge applies. This applies to the true un-inflated cost of postage only; if a marketer adds handling, packaging, packing or administration fees, the item can no longer be described as “free” (Code rule 3.24.1). See Pua Training Ltd, 4 September 2013.
The ASA also upheld a complaint about an app for a photo printing company which stated, “FREE PHOTO PRINTS DELIVERED TO YOUR DOOR”. In some cases, consumers were paying more than the minimum cost of postage to obtain the “free” prints. Consequently, the ASA ruled that the prints should not have been described as ‘free’, as consumers were paying a sum other than the unavoidable cost of delivery. A name such as ‘FreePrints’ should not have been used either. In addition, the ASA told the advertiser to make it clear if consumers had to pay for postage to obtain the ‘free’ prints (PlanetArt UK Ltd, 03 August 2022).
See ‘Use of free’ for further information on using ‘free’ in ads.
Inflated delivery charges
Inflated delivery charges can make price claims misleading. All delivery charges should be accurate and reflect the true cost of delivery. They should not be used to make the selling price of the product seem more attractive (Priyankas Design Pvt Ltd, 6 March 2013).
For more advice on this topic, see CAP’s Enforcement Notice about Advertised Delivery Restrictions and Surcharges.