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.
Advertising Guidance on Lowest Price Claims and Promises provides guidance on the use of lowest price claims and promises to help marketers and their agencies ensure that their marketing conforms to the CAP Code.
The guidance covers: the law and the Codes; “lowest price” claims; price promises; guarantee vs. guaranteed; and “unbeatable low prices” claims and promises.
Key points to consider when using lowest price claims
“Lowest price guaranteed” and “lowest price guarantee”
Key points to consider when using "lowest price" claims
The key points, as set out in the Advertising Guidance, are as follows:
- "Lowest price" claims (or "best price" claims) must be backed up by suitable evidence to show that marketers will always beat, and not merely match, competitors’ prices.
- If "lowest price" claims are based on monitoring carried out on a specific date, marketing communications should include that date. Monitoring should be carried out by the marketer as close as possible to the appearance dates of marketing communications. Marketers in highly competitive markets where competitors change their prices swiftly and in response to a price led marketing communication should take extra care.
- Offering a price promise (e.g. to beat a competitors’ cheaper price if informed of that price by a consumer) does not justify a "lowest price" claim if the latter claim cannot be supported.
- Any significant conditions attached to price promises should be clearly stated.
- "Lowest prices guaranteed" and "lowest prices guarantee" are often confused. The former constitutes a claim that the product cannot be purchased as cheaply or cheaper elsewhere; the latter, a price promise.
- Marketers offering to match, but not beat, competitors’ prices should ensure that their advertising clearly reflects that.
- Marketers should ensure that "lowest price" claims in media with long copy deadlines (e.g., magazines) are still accurate at the time that marketing communications appear. Similarly, "lowest price" claims in advertising material with a long "shelf-life" (e.g., advertisements in directories or brochures) should remain accurate for the duration of the marketing communications’ appearance.
Do not mislead consumers
Lowest price claims must not mislead. In 2024, the ASA upheld a complaint against a claim in an ad for “Koolpak Kool Patch” which read “Speak offer – buy today for the lowest price on the market”. The ASA was not provided with any comparative sales data to covering all retailers across the UK in order to substantiate the claim. The complainant also reported seeing the featured product available at a lower price from another online retailer. On that basis, the ad was deemed to be misleading (Medi Supplies Ltd, 24 January 2024).
In 2020, a TV ad which stated, “Save big on the UK’s lowest priced superfast broadband, with WiFi Guarantee or money back” was considered misleading. Due to the way the message was conveyed in the ad (via staggered messaging, at a fast pace, with pauses between the first and second part of the claim) the ASA considered that the ad was likely to be understood by consumers to mean that Sky were offering the UK’s lowest priced superfast broadband. In reality, the comparison related only to superfast broadband products which also offered a guarantee of a certain WiFi speed in every room of a home, or money-back on the subscription if that was not achieved (Sky UK Ltd, 13 May 2020).
Using qualifying information
Claims must be sufficiently qualified and should be presented prominently. They must not contradict the overall impression in the ad. A complaint about an ad which stated “UK’s lowest price” for a Samsung Galaxy S6 was upheld. Whilst the ad’s small print made clear that the ad was referring to a particular plan offered by Three, and comparing that plan to the nearest equivalent offered by their major competitors as of a certain date, the information lacked prominence. The ASA considered that the information was not sufficient to counteract the overall impression that the claim "the UK's lowest prices" related to all retailers, and was accurate at the time the ad was seen. (Hutchison 3G UK Ltd t/a Three, 03 February 2016). See also Direct Line, 21 July 2021.
“Lowest price guaranteed” and “lowest price guarantee”
Ads sometimes confuse the claim “lowest price guaranteed” (where they do extensive monitoring and lower their prices in response to market movements) with the claim to offer a “lowest price guarantee” (where they will 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).
As detailed in Guarantees and Warranties, advertisers should not claim that consumers are guaranteed the “lowest available price online” when booking directly with the advertiser, if that is not the case (InterContinental Hotels Group plc t/a IHG, 08 January 2020).
See ‘Guarantees & Warranties’ for more general guidance.