Background
This Ruling forms part of a wider piece of work on mid-contract price rises, identified for investigation following complaints received. See also related rulings published on 9 October 2024.
Ad description
A webpage on the EE website www.ee.co.uk, seen in May 2024, featured headline text that stated, "ULTRA RELIABLE BROADBAND [...] £29.99 MONTHLY". A box under the headline text allowed consumers to enter their postcode to check availability. Smaller text under that box stated, "Monthly prices increase £3 on 31 March each year. 24 month [sic] contract". Once a postcode was entered a page with various broadband packages was displayed, with headline text that stated, "BUILD YOUR PACKAGE". Smaller text further down the page stated, "Monthly prices increase £3 for broadband and £2 for TV on 31 March each year". Three full-fibre broadband packages were listed further down the page. Text for each of the packages stated the download speed, cost and length of the contract. Smaller text directly under the price stated, “Increases 31 March”.
At the bottom of the page, under the subheading “The legal bit”, text stated, “On 31 March each year the monthly price shown for your broadband plan will increase by £3 […] Out of bundle charges will increase by 5%. See ee.co.uk/prices-explained for details. All prices shown are in contract [sic] prices. Please note the cost of other services you take from us may increase or decrease while you are an EE customer".
Issue
The complainant challenged whether the presentation of the mid-contract price increases was misleading.Response
EE Ltd said that the price rise information had been included below the postcode availability checker. It had also been re-stated on the webpages that appeared after consumers entered their postcodes.
EE also said that the price increases which applied to the three plans seen in the ad were stated above the detailed information for each of the three broadband packages, and that the date of the price increase had been included immediately after the monthly price was stated for each of the packages. They said they had also included the price rise information in detail below the table of available plans. They believed that approach was compliant with ASA requirements.
Assessment
Upheld
CAP Guidance stated that the presence of and, if applicable, the nature of mid-contract price increases, were material information that consumers needed in order to make an informed transactional decision. Consequently, marketers were required to ensure that advertising for services that included mid-contract price increases included such information and that it was presented clearly and prominently. The guidance also stated that asterisks or links, which linked to information more than one ‘step’ below the price claim, were unlikely to give adequate weight to the significance of material information. The ASA assessed the ad in question against the Code.
The postcode checker webpage included the claim “Ultra reliable broadband £29.99 monthly”, followed by a box in which consumers could enter their postcode. The subsequent webpage, seen after a postcode had been entered, described various broadband packages alongside the corresponding price per month of each package. The prices seen in the individual boxes for each of the packages were followed by statements which stated that the price would increase on 31 March. We considered consumers would understand that the monthly price would be fixed until that date. However, we considered that neither webpage made it clear to consumers how, or by what means, the monthly charge would be affected after that date.
We understood that all of the advertised broadband packages were subject to mid-contract price increases, and that each March, the monthly price would increase by £3. We considered that information was material to a consumer’s decision to purchase or engage further with each of the packages. While we acknowledged that text on both webpages indicated that the monthly price would increase on 31 March, we considered that neither page made clear the nature of the price increases after that date.
We acknowledged that both webpages contained further information which stipulated the nature of the price rise. However, we considered the text on the postcode checker webpage, which stated that prices would increase by £3 each year was significantly smaller and removed from the main headline price claim, was easy to miss due to its placement under the postcode checker box. We therefore considered that it had not been clearly and prominently presented to consumers.
We also assessed the text near the top of the broadband package webpage, which similarly stated that prices would increase by £3 each year. We acknowledged EE’s comments that they had included specific information about the price rise amount above the individual package details, to try to make clear to consumers that all packages were subject to the price rise. However, we considered that the information was not as prominent or as large as the information for each broadband package. We also noted that it was not located close to the price claims, which we considered did not give adequate weight to the significance of such information. The text near the top of the webpage was located underneath a box which contained information on EE mobile phone contract savings. We considered that this text was easy to miss due to its size and positioning under that information. We also noted that the information concerning the price increases did not remain visible as the webpage was scrolled down, meaning that the packages could potentially be viewed while the specific price increase information was not visible on-screen. We further noted that the listings of the individual broadband packages did not provide information explaining the nature of the price increases, which we considered to be material information that should have been made clear to consumers considering the price claims in those listings. We therefore considered that information which detailed the nature of the price rise had not been prominently or clearly displayed.
We then considered the qualification located at the bottom of the broadband package webpage under the heading “The legal bit”. The qualification explained that the monthly cost of each package would increase on 31 March each year and outlined the nature of that price increase; specifically, that it would increase by £3. Again, because that material information was not included within the listings for each broadband package, and because we did not consider that it was given equal prominence to the price claim within the webpage, we considered that it had not been prominently or clearly displayed. Furthermore, we considered that if consumers did not scroll down past the information on the broadband packages, the information included in the qualification would likely have been overlooked because of its placement at the bottom of the page.
Because the presentation of the mid-contract price increases was not presented clearly, we concluded the ad was likely to mislead.
The ad breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1 and 3.3 (Misleading advertising), 3.10 (Qualification), and 3.17 and 3.18 (Prices).
Action
The ad must not appear again in its current form. We told EE Ltd to ensure that they made sufficiently clear that their broadband contracts would be subject to mid-contract price increases, and that information about the nature of such price increases was presented prominently.
