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: qualifying information, asterisk, T&Cs in ads, further details
Updates to this AdviceOnline library entry will be made in due course once the review of the CAP Code, following the introduction of the unfair commercial practices (UCP) provisions in Chapter 1 of Part 4 of the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024 (DMCCA), is complete. Further information on the ASA’s approach to enforcement can be found here.
Many marketers use footnotes or small print to qualify more prominent claims. To help marketers understand when qualifications are likely to be required, and the level of clarification needed, CAP has issued Advertising Guidance on the use of qualifications in ads. The guidance below should be read in conjunction with this Advertising Guidance. As explained in the guidance, marketers should be aware that qualifications may need different levels of prominence, and it may not always be sufficient to include qualifications in the small print only.
Marketing communications must not materially mislead or be likely to do so (rule 3.1). The Advertising Guidance explains that the ASA frequently rule on the use of qualifications where marketers have failed to meet the Code’s requirements that qualifying information should:
- be included where it is material to the consumer’s understanding of the primary claim, or marketing communication as a whole;
- not contradict the primary claim being qualified to the extent that consumers are likely to be misled; and
- must be presented clearly with an appropriate level of prominence.
This overview broadly mirrors the content of rules 3.3, 3.9 and 3.10 of the CAP Code.
Qualify claims where necessary
Qualify, don’t contradict
Present qualifications clearly and with sufficient prominence
Qualify claims where necessary
Often, qualifications are necessary to ensure that ads do not mislead. They can provide additional pieces of information that ensure consumers properly understand the headline or primary claims being made.
Marketing communications should include information about important limitations or conditions which apply to the product or service advertised. The ASA upheld a complaint about an ad for Alton Towers Theme Park including information about a “Rainy Day Guarantee”, as the ad 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 that day. This was deemed to be a significant limitation that should have been made clear (Merlin Attractions Operations Ltd t/a Alton Towers Resort, 29 November 2023). See also WHG (International) Ltd t/a William Hill Online, 31 July 2024 and Sunny Showers Ltd, 28 March 2018.
Headline claims may be considered misleading if material information is not included in the ad. 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). See also Toyota (GB) plc, 28 June 2023 and Holiday Extras Ltd, 21 June 2023. Further information is also available in Misleading Advertising and Misleading Advertising: Qualifications.
Additional requirements apply to promotional offers. For guidance on the information which should be included when running promotions, see Promotional marketing: terms and conditions.
Qualify, don't contradict
Rule 3.9 states that qualifications may be used to clarify claims, but they must not contradict those claims to the extent that consumers are likely to be misled.
The ASA investigated a claim on a website which stated a cruise left from “Venice (Ravenna), Italy”. The complainant understood Ravenna was over two hours from Venice by car, and challenged whether the claims relating to port location were misleading. Further detail in the ad clarified the travel time between Ravenna and Venice. However, the ASA decided that information contradicted, rather than qualified, the original claim. In any case, the supplementary information was insufficiently prominent, as consumers could have booked the cruise without viewing it (Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd t/a Royal Caribbean International, 25 October 2023).
Similarly, the ASA considered that the need for employees to determine their fixed “availability to work” period at the outset of their employment contradicted the “0 Hours Permanent Contract” claim in a job vacancy ad, which implied that employees did not have to work regular hours if they did not want to (Home Instead Ltd, 17 August 2022). The ASA also decided that the terms of a promotion contradicted a headline claim, as despite the headline claim stating that any order over £200 would receive a 20% discount when the code was used, this was not the case when a separate discount code had already been applied (Screen with Envy Ltd, 28 September 2022). See also IT Career Change Ltd, 18 December 2024, BetterMe Ltd t/a Better Me, 19 June 2024 and Ellanoir Luxury 2021, 03 November 2021.
Complaints about an ad which featured a full-length shot of a model wearing a dress, alongside the claim “SHOP NEW IN FROM £8” were upheld in 2017. Although the ad stated “* DRESS SHOWN £35”, this appeared in very small text in the left-hand bottom corner of the ad, and the ASA considered that consumers were unlikely to notice it. The ASA considered that, even if some consumers had seen the qualification “* DRESS SHOWN £35” it contradicted, rather than clarified, the headline claim (PrettyLittleThing.com, 04 September 2017). See also In The Style, Fashion, 06 January 2021.
In 2025, the ASA did not uphold a complaint about a comparison between Nectar points and Tesco Clubcard points. One of the factors that led to this decision was the fact the qualifying text that linked to a headline claim via an asterisk clarified, rather than contradicted, the headline claim (Tesco Stores Ltd t/a Tesco, 12 February 2025).
See Misleading Advertising: Qualifications for further relevant examples of Rule 3.10 being breached.
Present qualifications clearly and with sufficient prominence
Rule 3.10 states that qualifications must be presented clearly. In general, where information is material to a consumer’s understanding of the product or service on offer, it should be presented in a way which can be easily seen and read by the average consumer. See rule 3.3 for more information.
Sections 5 of the Advertising Guidance on the use of qualifications in ads include details, in a non-exhaustive list, some of the factors which are likely to be considered when assessing whether a qualification is sufficiently clear and prominent. These factors include the size of the qualifications, their positioning in the ad, the significance of the qualification, the content and layout of the rest of the marketing, the nature of the medium, and the prominence of the primary claim.
The guidance also provides a ‘qualifying ladder’ to help marketers determine whether information should be in the headline, sub-heading, body copy, or whether it is sufficient to include these in footnotes. Marketers should select an appropriate level of prominence relative to the position of their primary claim. The main determinate of this is the importance of the information contained in the qualification to the consumers’ understanding of the primary claim; the more important the qualifier, the greater prominence is likely to be necessary (i.e. the fewer steps there should be in the qualification ladder between the primary claim and qualifying information).
Minor qualifications, especially those that are clearly linked to the claim they qualify (for example, with an asterisk) are likely to be acceptable in footnotes, but significant qualifications may not be.
For example, in 2024 the William Hill website displayed the claim “Get £60 from a £10 Bet” and a “Join Here” button with the text “payment methods…restrictions apply. Full T&Cs apply” underneath it. The full terms were set out in small print further down the page, and stated that the promotion was unavailable where the initial funds were paid in via Apple Pay. The ASA ruled that the initial text did not make sufficiently clear that Apple Pay was excluded from the promotion. The initial text was not linked to the relevant term. Consumers needed to read numerous terms to understand the restriction. The ASA therefore decided the significant condition was insufficiently prominent (WHG (International) Ltd t/a William Hill Online, 31 July 2024). See also Telefonica UK Ltd, 08 July 2020. Including qualifications at the end of an email or webpage, only viewable by scrolling down, is unlikely to be sufficient.
For instance, the ASA considered the claim “from £47 pp one way + car” on a webpage advertising a ferry crossing from Newcastle to Amsterdam. Qualifying text explaining that this type of one-way ticket was only available when four places were booked in a four-person cabin was included at the bottom of the page, but consumers would only have been aware of this had they scrolled down the page, which they were not required to do to book. The qualifying information was deemed to be insufficiently prominent (DFDS Seaways Ltd t/a DFDS, dfdsseaways.co.uk, 13 September 2023).
Footnotes should be prominent and clearly linked to the claim they qualify.
By way of example, in 2022 the ASA considered a series of Sky ads (website and via email) in which Sky had defined “major provider” in a specific way. Because the definition required explaining, the ASA considered that a qualification should have been suitably prominent. The qualification in the webpage was in a drop-down menu. It was located at the bottom of the email ad. There was also no asterisk linking the claim to the term on the webpage, and whilst there was an asterisk next to the claim in the email, there was no corresponding asterisk next to the term. The footnotes were lengthy in both instances, and only a limited amount related to disputed claims. On that basis, the ads were deemed to be misleading (Sky UK Ltd, 10 August 2022).
Similarly, the ASA ruled against an ad which included a “T&Cs apply” message next to a Christmas delivery claim on a webpage, but did not include an asterisk showing where those T&Cs could be viewed (i.e. on a separate webpage) (High Seat Life t/a HSL, 12 February 2025). See also Official iPhone Unlock Ltd, 16 May 2018).
Vertical qualifications are less likely to be acceptable as they are more difficult to read than horizontal ones. Whilst there is no specific font or size that marketers should use for small-print, qualifications included in small-print should not be presented in a text size, font, or colour which makes them difficult to read.
Marketers should also take media characteristics into account; printed ads that consumers handle directly generally allows a greater opportunity for consumers to read qualifications, for instance, those contained in a footnote. That is less likely to be the case for media or ad types viewed from a distance (for example, posters).
Marketers should also note that BCAP has produced separate guidance on the requirements for the use of superimposed text in TV advertising.
See also: Misleading advertising.