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.
“Only” and “One and only” claims will be regarded as either objective or subjective by the ASA, depending on the context of the claim.
Objective 'only' claims
If an advertiser claims to be the only company to offer a service, or to offer certain benefits to the consumer, it is likely that this will be considered an objective claim, which the advertiser must be able to substantiate (Rule 3.7). By way of example, in 2023 complainants challenged whether the claims in two TV ads that Cover Today (an insurance provider) was the ‘only’ over 50s life insurer to offer immediate cover without a waiting period was misleading. However, the advertiser showed they were the only provider that did not require a waiting period until the full benefits of the cover could be claimed. In contrast, all other providers had a waiting period of between 12 and 36 months, (apart from in respect of accidental death). Therefore, the ‘only’ claim had been substantiated (Neilson Financial Services Ltd t/a Cover Today, 17 May 2023).
In 2019, Greenstar Gas claimed to be the ‘only plumbing and service company that has [sic] 100% transparent…pricing system…’ A ‘Three Best’ logo appeared alongside the claim, which represented a rating they received from a third party comparing (supposedly) the three best local plumbers. Because Greenstar Gas were the only local plumber of the “3 best rated” to list their prices, they believed the claim was justified. However, the ASA thought consumers would expect the claim to be comparing their pricing transparency with all relevant competitors, rather than just three, given they were unlikely to have been aware of the logo’s meaning. Because they could not substantiate this wider comparison, the claim was deemed misleading (Greenstar Gas, Plumbing and Heating, 31 July 2019). See also L’Oreal (UK) Ltd, 9 October 2019 for other examples of objective “only” claims.
"We're the only major provider to guarantee no mid-contract price rises across all our broadband plans" was also considered misleading. The ASA said there was no accepted definition of a “major provider” in the broadband market, and that despite their lower market share, TalkTalk’s competitor Plusnet provided services to many customers and had a significant advertising presence. This meant consumers would likely identify them as one of the leading industry names. Because Plusnet also offered fixed term broadband packages, the claim was considered misleading (TalkTalk Telecom Ltd, 27 February 2019).
Comparative “only” claims such as these will be subject to the rules which apply to comparisons, meaning the basis of the claim should be clear, supported by evidence, and verifiable. See Comparisons: General and Comparisons: Identifiable competitors for more information.
Subjective 'only' claims
If “only” or “one and only” claims are viewed as the equivalent to “best” claims, in certain contexts the ASA may, depending on the circumstances, regard such a claim as a subjective expression of opinion, . See Types of claims: “Best” for more information.
Additional information explaining under what circumstances the ASA will determine claims to be subjective can be found in Types of Claims: Puffery and expressions of opinion.