Background
Summary of Council decision:
Two issues were investigated, both of which were Upheld.
Ad description
a. A paid-for Facebook ad for Winedrops, an online wine retailer, seen in August 2024 featured images of three bottles of wine alongside a table comparing the “Price You’re Used To” with “Our Price”. The ad stated the “Price You’re Used To” as £50, £25 and £15 respectively for Whispering Angel Rose, Veuve Clicquot and 19 Crimes. It stated Winedrops’ prices as £26, £10 and £7 respectively.
b. A sponsored Instagram story for winedropsclub [sic], seen in October 2024, showed a hand holding a bottle of champagne and a wad of banknotes. Text over the image read “So cheap you’ll think it’s a scam…until the wine gets delivered”. Under the text five white stars appeared in green squares, resembling Trustpilot ratings.
Issue
- A complainant, who understood that the “Price You’re Used To” was higher than the price at which the wines could be bought from other retailers, challenged whether the implied savings claims could be substantiated and were misleading.
- A complainant, who understood that Winedrops had a low rating on Trustpilot accompanied by a warning that it was “displaying Trustpilot content in a way that could be misleading”, challenged whether the implied ratings could be substantiated and were misleading.
Response
1. Banquist Ltd t/a Winedrops acknowledged that they had made an error in the ad; in particular, the prices stated for Veuve Cliquot and Whispering Angel had been reversed by mistake. They said they would amend that error. They also explained that they used average prices from a price-comparison, e-commerce platform for wines and spirits for their own price comparisons. They described it as based on live data, and the most reputable and widely used platform for average wine prices.
Winedrops stated that the average prices on the platform were: Veuve Cliquot £45 excluding tax and £57.84 including tax; Whispering Angel £18 excluding tax and £25.44 including tax; and 19 Crimes Red Blend £8 excluding tax and £13.44 including tax. They said that the price of 19 Crimes Red Blend had been overstated and that it was possible that the average price had decreased since ad (a). But they also provided an example of one online retailer that was selling it for £14.99.
Winedrops provided evidence of the prices they charged at a specific point in time, but explained that they did not keep a pricing history of their products. They emphasised that they regularly offered discounts rather than keeping one price for a sustained period.
2. Winedrops clarified that the review and accompanying rating used in ad (b) was posted on their own website at winedrops.com/reviews. Winedrops said that their Trustpilot rating was also good and provided a link to their company on the review site. They said they had thousands of five-star reviews on Trustpilot and that their overall rating was 4.4. They also queried why they were not allowed to use white stars on a green background to display a rating from a customer and said that other companies were using that design when referring to customer reviews.
Assessment
1. Upheld
The ASA considered that consumers would interpret the phrase “Price You’re Used to” to be the price at which the products were generally sold across the market.
We understood that the price comparison website used for the basis of the “Price You’re Used to” claims did not include any of the supermarkets or larger wine retailers. Because of that, we considered that Winedrops had not shown that the “Price You’re Used to” prices quoted in the ad were those at which the products were generally sold across the market. We also considered that the ad, which did not give the date on which the comparison was made or how the “Price You’re Used to” was determined, did not make the basis of the comparison clear.
We therefore concluded that the implied savings claims in ad (a) had not been substantiated and were therefore misleading.
On that point, ad (a) breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1 (Misleading advertising), and 3.7 (Substantiation), 3.39 and 3.40 (Price comparisons).
2. Upheld
We considered that consumers were likely to interpret the rating, which was presented as five white stars in green squares, as the official Trustpilot rating for the company.
We understood, however, that the review and rating in the ad had been left by an individual customer on Winedrops’ own website and was not the Trustpilot rating for the company. Winedrops was rated 4.4 on Trustpilot according to the link they provided during the investigation. However, we had not seen evidence of their rating on Trustpilot at the time ad (b) was seen by the complainant and, in any event, a rating of 4.4 was not the same as a five-star rating, as was shown in the ad.
Because the rating appeared to be a five-star Trustpilot rating for the company, and we had not seen evidence that Winedrops had a rating of five stars on Trustpilot at the time the complainant had seen the ad, we concluded that ad (b) was therefore misleading.
On that point, ad (b) breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1 (Misleading advertising) and 3.7 (Substantiation).
Action
The ads must not appear again in the form complained of. We told Banquist Ltd t/a Winedrops to ensure that future price comparisons were not misleading, and that the basis of such comparisons was clear in their advertising and adequately substantiated. We also told them to avoid implying that reviews and ratings from their own website were from third-party review websites, for example, by not using the Trustpilot stars.
