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.
Unlike superlative claims, which claim that a product or service is superior to all alternatives, parity and top parity claims are those which state that a product or service is equal to its competitors.
The CAP Code requires advertisers to hold documentary evidence to substantiate claims that consumers are likely to regard as objective and that are capable of objective substantiation. Parity or top parity claims must be supported by evidence unless they are obvious exaggerations (puffery) or claims that consumers are unlikely to take literally.
If the claim will be understood as a comparison with identifiable competitors, the rules on making this type of claim will also apply (rules 3.33 – 3.37). See Comparisons: general.
Is the (top) parity claim a comparison with identifiable competitors?
Puffery and expressions of opinion
Top parity claims
Top parity claims are top-equal or joint-best claims, and may be used where an outright superiority claim, such as “best”, “best-selling” or “leading” is not possible.
A top parity claim appeared in an ad for Flarin in 2023. The ad stated ‘for joint pain, no other ibuprofen has been proven to be more effective’. The ASA considered whether, because of the emphasis placed on certain words in the top parity claim, and the ad’s overall impression, consumers would interpret the ad to mean that because of Flarin’s underlying technology, it was more or uniquely effective for joint pain than other ibuprofen products, despite this not being true. The ASA decided the visual emphasis placed on ‘joint pain’ and ‘more effective’ introduced ambiguity into how consumers would interpret the claim. In other words, consumers may interpret the ad to be suggesting that because of the underlying technology, Flarin was more, or uniquely, effective for relieving joint pain compared to other ibuprofen products (infirst Ltd t/a Flarin, 17 April 2024).
As this ruling shows, advertisers must therefore carefully consider an ad’s overall impression, and the extent to which it impacts the likely interpretation of a top parity claim.
‘Unbeatable’ claims are another form of top parity claim. In 2010, the ASA held that a claim a product was "an unbeatable treatment for head lice" was a top parity claim, rather than a superiority claim. In addition, because the evidence demonstrated that the treatment was 100% effective and no product could exceed that level of effectiveness, the ASA concluded that the claim was not misleading (Chefaro UK Ltd, 8 December 2010). In contrast, another “unbeatable treatment” claim for a different head lice product was considered misleading. In this instance, because the ASA had not been provided with robust evidence demonstrating that the product was 100% effective, and because other products in the advertiser’s range were 100% effective, the claim had not been substantiated (Omega Pharma Ltd, 9 April 2014). See also RB UK Commercial Ltd, 5 June 2019.
Parity claims
A parity claim is a claim that a product or service is equal to its alternatives, without claiming that it is the top-equal or joint-best (i.e. of ‘top-parity’). As with all objective claims, marketers must hold evidence substantiating the claim.
By way of example, the ASA said consumers would understand “As Powerful as a Corded Vacuum” to mean that the cordless ‘Vax Blade’ vacuum was as effective at cleaning as a range of standard corded vacuums but would not expect it to be as equally effective as all corded vacuums. In the absence of a sufficiently clear and prominent qualification, the ASA said consumers would understand the claim to mean that, in respect of all surface types, the cordless vacuum was as effective as a corded vacuum at cleaning dust, dirt and debris. Because Vax’s evidence did not relate to all surface types, and only included dust pick-up performance testing, the claim had not been substantiated, and was misleading (Vax Ltd, 19 June 2019).
Additionally, in 2018 the ASA considered that consumers would understand the claim "protects you just as effectively as Deet", alongside the claim “It is just as strong as any Deet based product” to mean that the products would provide the same duration and level of protection as all DEET-based products. Because the advertiser had not provided the ASA with any studies directly comparing the efficacy and duration of protection of the advertised products with any DEET-based products, it was decided the claims had not been substantiated and were misleading (Howad Ltd t/a incognito, 22 August 2018).
Is the (top) parity claim a comparison with identifiable competitors?
In most cases, parity and top parity claims are likely to be understood as comparisons with identifiable competitors. Marketing communications do not need to explicitly identify the competitor or product being compared to be subject to the rules on comparisons with 'identifiable' competitors. If a consumer can identify at least one competitor or competing product, whether or not it is identified explicitly in the ad, rules 3.33 – 3.37 will apply. This type of comparison is allowed provided it is based on objective criteria and is presented in a way unlikely to mislead. See Comparisons: identifiable competitors.
The CAP Code requires that comparisons with identifiable competitor products must be verifiable. To make a claim verifiable, the advertiser should set out the relevant information in the ad or signpost how the information used to make that comparison can be checked. The information needed should be readily accessible. Providing incomplete or inaccessible information, for example behind a paywall, is unlikely to be considered sufficient.
The need to verify ‘top parity’ claims was considered in 2019 in respect of the claim “there’s nothing faster or stronger”. The ASA said consumers would understand this claim to be a comparison with other similar, identifiable products on the market. As such, the claim should have been verifiable. Although the advertiser did have sufficient evidence to support the claim, the ad did not include, or direct listeners to, information to allow them to understand the comparison, or to check that the claim was accurate. The claim was therefore not verifiable (RB UK Commercial Ltd, 05 June 2019).
For detailed advice on this requirement see Comparisons: Verifiability and Comparisons: Identifiable competitors.
Puffery and expressions of opinion
In some circumstances, the ASA may consider that parity and top parity claims are unlikely to be taken literally by consumers, either because they are clearly a subjective expression of the marketer’s opinion, or because they are clearly obvious exaggerations (“puffery”). These types of claims are unlikely to be capable of substantiation, and are acceptable provided they do not materially mislead (rule 3.2). For example, in 2020 the ASA considered the claim “THE ORIGINAL AND THE BEST SINCE 2004”, in an ad for a pillowcase would be understood as a subjective expression of Slipsilk’s opinion about their product and was not capable of objective substantiation (Slip Enterprises Pty Ltd t/a Slipsilk 11 March 2020). Similarly, the ASA decided that ‘get car insurance that really solves your car problems’ was also advertising puffery, rather than an objective comparative claim that required substantiation (UK Insurance Ltd t/a Direct Line, 21 July 2021).
See Types of Claims: Puffery and expressions of opinion for more information.