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.
“Guarantee” should not be used in a way that could confuse consumers about their rights (rule 3.53), but may be used if the meaning is clear.
Marketers should distinguish between offering a guarantee, such as a ‘satisfaction or money back guarantee’, and claims that something, for example a certain level of performance, is guaranteed (see Smartinvest Capital Ltd, 21 November 2018). Marketers who cannot “guarantee” certain results should be careful not to imply they can.
Significant limitations to guarantees should be clearly stated
Do not imply something is guaranteed if it is not
Be aware of consumers’ rights and relevant legislation
Do not confuse between "lowest price guarantee" and "lowest price guaranteed"
Significant limitations to guarantees should be clearly stated
Under rule 3.54, ads must make clear each significant limitation (of the type that has implications for a consumer’s rights) to an advertised. For example, if a warranty covers parts but not labour, marketers should make that clear. Similarly, if the guarantee applies only in certain circumstances or consumers must fulfil certain criteria to validate their guarantee, that should be clear too.
In 2023, the ASA found a page on the website for Alton Towers Theme Park to have breached the CAP Code. The ad included information about a “Rainy Day Guarantee”, but failed to make clear that the guarantee could only be invoked after one hour of continuous rain, as declared by the Park Duty Manager on the day. The ASA decided this constituted a significant limitation that should have been made clear. Details about how the guarantee was declared, and how long rides needed to be out of operation for, were also deemed to be material to a consumer’s understanding of the guarantee (Merlin Attractions Operations Ltd t/a Alton Towers Resort, 29 November 2023).
In 2019, the ASA concluded “Your 12 Month No Quibble Guarantee” and “All your repairs and installations are guaranteed for 12 months” were likely to be understood to mean that all repair and installation services were covered by the guarantee for 12 months. However, the guarantee excluded repairs to blocked drains (other than in very specific circumstances). The ASA concluded this significant limitation should have been made clear. As it could only be found within a link labelled ‘TERMS & CONDITIONS’ in small text at the bottom of the webpage, the ad was deemed misleading (Plumbforce Direct Ltd, 30 October 2019). See also Blood and Medical Services Ltd t/a Vivo Clinic Shop, 05 May 2021.
An ad which referrred to a rent guarantee was also deemed to have breached the CAP Code. The ad failed to make the significant limitations to the guarantee clear. This was despite the ad stating that T&Cs applied to the guarantee (Smart Invest Capital Ltd t/a Victoria Knight, 20 November 2018).
Marketers must also supply the full terms before the consumer is committed to taking up the guarantee. In addition to omitting the significant limitations of the rent guarantee, Victoria Knight did not make a copy of the full terms available for landlords to view on the website (Smart Invest Capital Ltd t/a Victoria Knight, 20 November 2018).
In 2023, the ASA concluded that an ad for hearing aids was likely to mislead consumers, because the ad failed to clarify the terms of the “money-back guaranteed” claim. The guarantee was applicable only if the product did not meet certain performance standards, but no link was drawn between the guarantee and the performance standards in question (Essential Sounds Hearing, 01 November 2023).
Do not imply something is guaranteed if it is not
Marketers should take care to avoid any implication that a level of quality or performance is guaranteed if it is not.
In 2023, Virgin Media were deemed to have breached the CAP Code, as consumers were likely to interpret “Get the fastest WiFi Guarantee of any major provider” to mean that that Virgin Media guaranteed to offer the fastest WiFi service of any major broadband provider, when this was not the case (Virgin Media Ltd t/a Virgin Media, 13 December 2023).
An ad for BT broadband which stated “Your Stay Fast Guarantee”, followed by a particular speed was also considered misleading. The ASA considered customers were likely to understand this to be the minimum broadband speed BT would commit to provide to the consumer’s address during their contract. However, the speed given was not a minimum guaranteed speed, but an estimate, which was subject to revision, and not one on which consumers could necessarily rely to leave their contract without penalty. On that basis, the ad was considered misleading (BT Sport, 22 December 2021).
The ASA also upheld complaints about the claim “lowest price guaranteed.” In 2019 a consumer complained about an ad for a package cruise after finding that it was cheaper to book flights, accommodation, and cruise travel separately, despite the inclusion of a ‘lowest price guaranteed’ claim. The ASA considered that consumers would understand “lowest price guaranteed” to mean the trips referenced could not be purchased elsewhere for less than the price advertised, and that the claim was accurate at the time the ad was seen. However, the advertiser provided no evidence that the prices stated were cheaper than any other travel provider for comparable trips (Cruise Nation, 24 April 2019).
In another ruling, the ASA found that because IHG’s ad implied consumers were guaranteed not to pay more by booking the same hotel room on IHG’s website than if they booked it elsewhere, when this was not the case, the ad was deemed to be misleading (Intercontinental Hotels Group plc t/a IHG, 08 January 2020).
Be aware of consumers’ rights and relevant legislation
If advertisers offer a money-back guarantee, the Code requires marketers to promptly refund consumers who make valid claims (rule 3.55).
A website for a footwear company included the claims “Easy Returns” and “100% Satisfaction Guarantee. Not satisfied? Take advantage of our money-back guarantee…” One complainant challenged whether this was misleading, as rather than receiving a full refund when attempting to return the purchased product as per the advertised guarantee, they were offered a 50% discount and told to keep the shoes. Furthermore, no return address was made available. On this basis, and given the advertiser could not demonstrate that consumers were routinely refunded as claimed, the ad was deemed misleading, and to have breached rule 3.55 (MedTech Global LLP t/a Orthoback, 07 August 2024). See also Hike Future Ltd t/a Hike Footwear, 28 August 2024 and VIP Inner Circle, 12 May 2021.
Marketers are also advised to seek legal advice, as, in some circumstances legislation could apply. For example, we understand that the Supply of Extended Warranties on Domestic Electrical Goods Order 2005 may apply to warranties offered on domestic electrical appliances. Section 4 details the obligation on marketers to advertise the price of an extended warranty on domestic electrical appliances in certain circumstances.
Do not confuse between "lowest price guarantee" and "lowest price guaranteed"
Many marketers offer a “lowest price guarantee” whereby they offer to beat (or sometimes match) competitors’ prices, in other words a ‘price promise’. Such a claim should not mislead, significant conditions should be clear from the outset and the full terms of the guarantee should be available before purchase. Marketers often confuse “lowest price guaranteed” (where an advertiser does extensive monitoring and lowers their prices in response to market movements) with the claim to offer a “lowest price guarantee” (whereby the advertiser promises to act if the consumer finds a price lower than theirs). Marketers must make clear which they are offering.
Complaints about an ad for a delivery service which stated "The Cheapest Parcel Delivery in the UK", “Guaranteed lowest price to Europe” and “LOWEST PRICE GUARANTEE” were upheld. The ASA considered it was unclear whether Parcel2Go offered cheaper prices than its competitors, parity with them, or a guarantee to change a price to beat a cheaper competitor offer. In reality it offered a price match scheme, whereby it would match, rather than beat, competitor prices. Because it did not provide any evidence to show its prices were in line with the likely interpretation of the claims, and because the combination of statements rendered the meaning of the claims ambiguous, the ASA considered that the ad was misleading (Parcel2go.com Ltd, 16 November 2016)
Other typical pitfalls include the failure to include key information. In 2014, the ASA upheld a complaint against a “price beat offer” for a TV. Because the advertiser did not make sufficiently clear that to be eligible the alternative TV had to include a comparable 5 year warranty (included for free with the advertisers’ product) the ASA concluded that the ad was misleading (Richer Sounds plc, 30 April 2014 ).
See ‘Lowest price claims and promises’ for further advice on such claims.