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.
Also known as: Section 3, misleading ads, materiality, objectivity in ads, price comparisons
Around 70% of complaints received by the ASA each year are considered under rules about misleading advertising. Section 3 of the CAP Code contains rules intended to prevent ads from misleading their audience, which include rules about the information which should be included in ads, the need to substantiate objective claims, pricing claims, and comparisons with competitors. Misleading advertising is sometimes colloquially known as 'false advertising'.
Don’t mislead consumers materially
Omission and presentation of material information
Omission of material information from an "invitation to purchase"
Ensure you can substantiate objective claims
Don’t make misleading exaggerations
Price claims and saving claims
Ensure ads reflect the spirit, and not just the letter, of the Code
Whenever the ASA considers whether a marketing communication misleads consumers or is aggressive or unfair to consumers, the ASA will have regard to the relevant sections of Chapter 1 of Part 4 of the Digital Markets Competition and Consumers Act 2024 (the DMCCA).
Section 3 of the CAP Code is entitled “Misleading Advertising”. Most rules in Section 3 of the CAP Code engage the transactional decision test. As set out in further detail in Appendix 1 of the CAP Code, when assessing whether an ad is likely to mislead, the ASA will consider how the average consumer will interpret the ad, and whether it is likely to cause them to take a transactional decision that they otherwise would not have taken. Those rules which engage the transactional decision test refer to marketing communications misleading the consumer.
Other rules in Section 3 of the CAP Code reflect prohibited practices that are considered unfair in all circumstances, and do not therefore require the application of a transactional decision test. Those rules generally state marketing communications “must not” engage in a practice, rather than referring to “misleading” the consumer. Where a rule in Section 3 of the CAP Code does reflect a prohibited practice, either in part or in its entirety, it is marked with an asterisk.
Marketers wishing to run business-to-business marketing must comply with the Business Protection from Misleading Marketing Regulations 2008 as well as the CAP Code.
Don’t mislead consumers materially
Rule 3.1 states that “Marketing communications must not materially mislead or be likely to do so”.
The extent to which marketing communications are misleading under the CAP Code will be assessed based on the overall impression those ads are likely to give consumers, as well as by the specific claims and images within the ad. Therefore, marketers should consider the overall impression created by an ad. By way of example, in 2024 the ASA ruled that four ads gave the misleading overall impression they were for a local locksmith business or tradesperson, when this was not the case (Person(s) unknown, 31 July 2024). The ASA also ruled that an ad was misleading because it misleadingly resembled an invoice (Worldwide Trademarks sro, 20 March 2024). See also Ben’s Gutters Ltd, 22 December 2021.
Marketers should also consider the extent to which any specific claims in their ads are likely to mislead, as making inaccurate objective claims (for example, about the features of a product or service) is likely to breach rule 3.1 of the CAP Code. For instance, the ASA ruled against an ad featuring the claim “each item is handmade in Italy”. The ASA were of the view that consumers would interpret the claim to mean that all products on the website were handmade in Italy, when this was not the case (Sterling Wholesale Ltd t/a Moncrief, 18 September 2024). In 2023, the ASA also ruled that a claim that eye drops could change the colour of a consumer’s eyes was misleading, in the absence of any objective substantiation (FancyDrops Co, 09 August 2023). Implying a company has a 5-star Trustpilot rating when this is not the case will also be deemed contrary to rule 3.1 (Banquist Ltd t/a Winedrops, 05 February 2025). See also Rental Republic Ltd, 19 January 2022.
The ASA will also consider whether any images or graphics used in an ad are likely to mislead. Images which give an inaccurate impression about the product which consumers will receive, for example by exaggerating the quality or size of the product, or suggesting that the product comes with extras when it does not, are likely to mislead. In 2024, the ASA ruled that an image depicting various baby items was not representative of what consumers received in an advertised “Baby Box” . The ad was deemed to be misleading on that basis (Fanfinders Ltd, 09 October 2024).
Images can also mislead as to the nature of less tangible products and services. For example, the ASA ruled that the claims and imagery used in ads for a social casino game, which were reflective of casino-based apps in which real-world money could be won, gave the misleading impression that the app was a gambling product in which real world money or tangible prizes could be won (Huuuge Global Limited t/a Billionaire Casino, 25 September 2024). See also Parsley Box Ltd, 13 November 2019 and Galco Enterprises Ltd 01 September 2021.
Similarly, a complaint about a paid-for X ad for a mobile game was upheld by the ASA, because the gameplay featured in the ad did not reflect the game’s core playing experience, and was therefore misleading (Top Games Inc, 03 April 2024). See also AppQuantum Publishing Ltd, 13 April 2022).
See Types of claims: general for guidance on specific types of claims.
Omission and presentation of material information
Rule 3.3 states that “marketing communications must not omit material information or information required to be included by law. This includes providing such information in a way that is unclear or untimely, or in a way that the consumer is unlikely to see or hear it".
Material information is defined as information that the average consumer needs to take an informed transactional decision. Marketing communications which omit material information, making it difficult for consumers to make informed decisions about a marketer’s product or service, are likely to breach rule 3.3.
Whether the omission or presentation of material information is likely to mislead the consumer into taking a transactional decision they otherwise would not have taken depends on the context, the medium and, if the medium of the marketing communication is limited (i.e. by time or space), the steps taken by the marketer to overcome these limitations by providing the information by other means.
In 2024, the ASA decided that two paid-for Instagram posts were misleading because neither made clear that the advertised offer applied across specific dates, which was material information (Eurostar International Ltd, 06 November 2024). The ASA also ruled that the homepage of the NOW TV website did not include material information explaining that the basic Entertainment, Cinema and Sports plans included ads (Sky UK Ltd t/a NOW, 31 July 2024). Two paid for Facebook ads for Golf Cash also misleadingly omitted material information relating to the presence of in-game purchases and/or loot boxes (Electronic Arts Ltd t/a EA, 20 March 2024). See also Lycamobile UK Ltd, 20 September 2017.
When using qualifications in marketing communications, advertisers should also be aware of rule 3.9 and rule 3.10. For further guidance on the use of qualifications, see Misleading advertising: Qualifications and CAP's Advertising Guidance on the use of qualifications.
Omission of material information from an "invitation to purchase"
For marketing communications that quote prices for advertised products (i.e. “invitations to purchase” – see Appendix 1 for further detail), rule 3.4 lists information which the ASA will deem to be material (as detailed in rule 3.4.1 – 3.4.6).
Therefore, if an ad includes a product’s price, omitting any of the information set out at rule 3.4 would, in effect, be omitting material information (for the purposes of rule 3.3), unless it is already apparent from the context.
Ensure you can substantiate objective claims
Marketers should ensure that they hold evidence to support all claims that consumers are likely to regard as objective (rule 3.7). In the absence of sufficient evidence, the ASA is likely to consider objective claims to be misleading. The type of evidence likely to be required by the ASA will depend on the product or service, the level of claim concerned and the context in which it appears. For example, the ASA upheld a complaint concerning a pre-roll ad on Youtube for the Qinux TitanPG watch, as the ASA had not been provided with any evidence to support any of the claims in the ad, including that the advertised watch used some of the “most advanced military technology in the world” (DeVosVoorzieningen BVBA t/a Qinux TitanPG, 13 November 2024).
For detailed guidance on the evidence which is likely to be required for particular sectors or types of claims, please see Substantiation. See also Types of Claims: General and Substantiation: Consumer surveys and sample claims
Efficacy claims made about health and beauty products, weight control products, food supplements and cosmetics are subject to additional sector specific rules. See Substantiation for health, beauty and slimming claims and CAP’s Advertising Guidance on this topic for further detailed guidance.
See CAP Advertising Guidance – misleading environmental claims and social responsibility for advice on how to substantiate environmental claims.
Subjective claims and puffery
Rule 3.2 states that obvious exaggerations (“puffery”) and claims that the average consumer is unlikely to take literally are allowed, provided they do not materially mislead. Marketers should be mindful that if the ASA considers a claim to be objective and capable of substantiation, it will consider the claim to be misleading in the absence of adequate evidence, even if the marketer did not consider the claim to be objective.
In 2020, the ASA considered the claim “THE BEST SINCE 2004” would be understood, in the context of the ad, as a subjective expression of the advertiser’s opinion about their pillowcase, and was therefore not capable of being backed up by objective evidence (Slip Enterprises Pty Ltd t/a Slipsilk, 11 March 2020). See also Hypnos Ltd, 26 November 2014.
See Types of claims: Puffery and expression of opinion, Types of claims: Superlative, Types of claims: Best, Types of Claims: Parity and Top Parity and Types of claims: General for more information.
Don’t make misleading exaggerations
Marketers must not mislead consumers by exaggerating the capability or performance of a product (rule 3.11).
In 2025, the ASA upheld a complaint which challenged whether various claims about laser eye surgery (LASIK) exaggerated the capabilities of treatment, because the claims implied the surgery would offer a permanent outcome, and that those who underwent the surgery would never need to wear contact lenses or glasses again. The advertiser lacked any evidence to back up those claims (Health Line, 22 January 2025). The ASA also ruled that the use of a particular image misleadingly exaggerated the capability of an advertised product in the ad. The ASA decided consumers would understand the image to be a screenshot taken directly from real footage sourced from one of the advertised dash cam models, but this was not the case (Portable Multimedia Ltd, 05 June 2024). The ASA have also ruled that ads have misleadingly exaggerated the performance of a photo-enhancing app (Codeway Dijital Hizmetler Anonim Sirketi t/a Codeway, 18 October 2023) and results of hair transplants (GET DHI Hair Clinic, 11 October 2023).
See also HiSmile Pty Ltd t/a HiSmile, 10 April 2019 and Photo Therapeutics Ltd, 23 December 2015.
Comparisons with competitors
Specific rules apply to ads which make comparisons (rules 3.32 – 3.37).
When making comparisons with identifiable competitors, in addition to holding evidence to substantiate the claim, marketers must compare products meeting the same need or intended for the same purpose (rule 3.33), and must objectively compare one or more material, relevant, verifiable and representative feature of those products, which may include price (rule 3.34).
Marketers are advised to include a signpost (i.e. a web address) to where consumers and competitors can verify an objective comparative claim.
For guidance on the requirements when making comparative claims see Comparisons: General, Comparisons: Identifiable competitors and Comparisons: Verifiability.
Price claims and saving claims
Rules 3.17 – 3.22 relate to price statements. Price statements must relate to the product featured in the ad and must not mislead by omission, undue emphasis or distortion (rule 3.17).
Where prices are quoted, they must include all non-optional fees and charges, unless these cannot be calculated in advance, in which case the ad must make clear how the fee is calculated, and that it is excluded from the advertised price. Ads which include prices must also state applicable delivery, freight or postal charges, or state that such charges are payable. See Compulsory costs and charges: General and Postage and Packing for more information.
When using ‘from’ or ‘up to’ pricing claims, marketers must not mislead by exaggerating the availability or amount of benefits likely to be obtained by the consumer (rule 3.22).
Ads that include a price comparison must not mislead by failing to make the basis of the comparison clear (rule 3.38). Price comparisons must not mislead by falsely claiming a price advantage. Comparisons with a recommended retail prices (RRPs) are likely to mislead if the RRP differs significantly from the price at which the product or service is generally sold (rule 3.39).
Advertisers must ensure that any reference prices, such as ‘was’ prices used to advertise the savings a consumer can make represent a genuine established usual selling price and will not mislead (Moreham Wood Ltd Oak Furniture Superstore, 25 September 2024).
See Comparisons: General for more information on how to make price comparisons in ads. See Prices: Recommended Retail Prices (RRPs) for issues to bear in mind when referencing RRPs in ads.
For further guidance on pricing claims see Prices: General.
Ensure ads reflect the spirit, and not just the letter, of the Code
As with all areas of advertising, marketers should remember that marketing communications should reflect the spirit, as well as the letter, of the Code (rule 1.2).
When assessing complaints, the ASA will consider the overall impression created by an ad, as well as individual claims and images.
For further information see: Types of claims: General, Compulsory costs and charges: General, Prices: General, Testimonials and Endorsements, Claims in Testimonials and Endorsements, and Availability.