Background
THIS RULING REPLACES THAT PUBLISHED ON 19 FEBRUARY 2025. THE WORDING OF THE ASSESSMENT HAS CHANGED BUT THE DECISION TO NOT UPHOLD THE COMPLAINT REMAINS.
Ad description
Four ads for Three Mobile:
a. A national press ad, seen in The Metro newspaper on 20 September 2024, featured an offer for an iPhone 16 Pro. Text stated, “Save up to £720 From just £33 a month when you trade-in iPhone 14 Pro £50 upfront Unlimited data Price rises each April by £1.50”. A banner at the top of the ad stated, “The UK’s Best Value Unlimited iPhone Deal”. Small print in the ad stated “Best Value claim: Three offers the lowest price combined deal for the iPhone 16 or iPhone 16 Pro on a 36 month device finance plan with a 24 month unlimited data plan available directly from any major network. Verify at three.co.uk/compare-iphone-deals […]”.
b. A paid-for Meta ad, seen on 4 October 2024, featured the same offer as in ad (a). It also featured the same banner stating, “The UK’s Best Value Unlimited iPhone Deal”. Small print stated “Terms apply. Verify at three.co.uk”.
c. A paid-for Meta ad, seen on 4 October 2024, featured a video highlighting the same offer as ads (a) and (b). During the video, a banner featuring text stating “The UK’s Best Value Unlimited iPhone Deal” flashed up on screen. The ad also included the small print “Terms apply. Verify at three.co.uk”.
d. A website for Three, www.three.co.uk, seen on 4 October 2024, featured the same offer as the other ads. Text in a heading stated, “The best value Unlimited iPhone 16 deal in the UK”. That heading linked through to a comparison page detailing the price of different iPhone 16 models with an unlimited plan on Three, EE, O2 and Vodafone. Text underneath the comparisons stated, “Price checked: 04/10/2024”. Text at the top of that page stated, “We have the most affordable combined deal for the iPhone 16 or iPhone 16 Pro. With a 36-month device plan and a 24-month unlimited data plan, Three provides the best value available when compared to any major network.”
Issue
Vodafone, who believed that the claim “The UK’s Best Value Unlimited iPhone Deal” in ads (a) - (d) would be likely to be interpreted by consumers to mean more than just price and to include factors such as network coverage, trade-in options and warranties, challenged whether the claim was misleading.
Response
Hutchison 3G UK Ltd t/a Three Mobile did not agree with Vodafone that consumers would be likely to interpret the claim “The UK’s Best Value Unlimited iPhone Deal” to mean more than just price and to include factors such as network coverage, trade-in options and warranties. They believed it was clear to consumers, within the context of the ads, that “best value” meant that Three Mobile offered the lowest total Monthly Recurring Charge (MRC) for the advertised device (including the upfront cost). They confirmed that their comparison was based on the same amount of data, texts and minutes (unlimited) across networks.
In ads (a) – (c), the claim “The UK’s Best Value Unlimited iPhone Deal” was followed by a savings claim, “Save up to £720”, which was in large, bolded text and was the most prominent claim in the ad. That was followed by a pricing stack, introduced with the claim “From just £33 a month when you trade-in iPhone 14 Pro”. The focus of those ads was clearly price, and customers would therefore read “best value” in that context. The basis of the claim was further clarified when a customer clicked directly through to the Three website, where they would then find the following terms and conditions: “Three provides the lowest Monthly Recurring Charge for iPhone 16 models listed above combined with an unlimited data plan, as well as the lowest total cost for the combination of the Device (including up-front cost) and 24 month unlimited data plan of all major mobile networks. Minimum upfront cost included for comparison.” The table referred to in those terms and conditions showed that Three Mobile offered a considerably lower MRC compared with EE, O2 and Vodafone, and that was without trading in an old phone. If a customer traded in their old phone, they could choose to use the trade-in value to lower their MRC further (as advertised in ads (a) – (c)).
They said consumers were aware of how expensive the latest devices were and, particularly in the current economic climate, would be drawn to notice low prices. In ads (a) – (c), Three Mobile was offering a significantly lower MRC than other major networks when a customer traded-in an iPhone 14 Pro (which, according to Three’s customer insight, was likely to be the most popular device traded in), and that was likely to jump out to consumers making it even more likely they would interpret “best value” as meaning lowest price.
In ad (d) the claim, “The UK’s Best Value Unlimited iPhone Deal” was followed by a claim about the iPhone’s performance (“iPhone 16 Pro Profoundly powerful”) and then a savings claim, “Save up to £720 when you trade in iPhone 14 Pro”. If the customer scrolled down the webpage, they were then shown a selection of savings offers, including the trade-in offers on the iPhone 16 series. Although a selection of Three's additional benefits was shown in tiles at the very bottom of the webpage, the emphasis of that webpage was clearly savings offers, i.e. price. In addition, the claim "The UK’s Best Value Unlimited iPhone Deal" hyperlinked to legal text describing the basis of the claim (in the terms and conditions, as described above). Therefore, Three Mobile believed that, in the overall context of ad (d), consumers would understand “best value” to mean lowest price.
Assessment
Not upheld
The CAP Code stated that marketing communications that included a comparison with an identifiable competitor must not mislead, or be likely to mislead, the consumer about either the advertised product or the competing product. They must objectively compare one or more material, verifiable and representative feature of those products, which may include price.
Vodafone, the complainant, believed “best value” gave consideration to a number of other factors besides price, including benefits such as extended warranties, trade-in options, lifetime service promises (which could include battery refresh and lifetime warranty for the device, beyond the standard two-year warranty) and add-on content. They were concerned that “price” and “value” were being conflated, which they believed was likely to mislead consumers. They believed that the combination of price and benefits made up the overall value to the customer and therefore Three Mobile needed to show that it offered a better overall package, in terms of a combination of price and benefits, than its competitors to be able to substantiate the claim.
The ASA considered that the ads had a strong emphasis on price: ads (a) – (c) stated, “Save up to £720” in large text in a header and “From just £33 per month” in smaller but prominent text; ad (d) referred to their iPhone 16 as being “more affordable” and compared the prices of Three’s plan with those of its competitors. We considered consumers were likely to interpret the claim, “The UK’s Best Value Unlimited iPhone Deal” as presented in the ads within the context of an iPhone 16 offer, which had a strong emphasis on price, to mean Three Mobile’s unlimited iPhone deal was cheaper than any of its competitors’ unlimited iPhone 16 deals. We considered consumers would understand “unlimited” within the claim to mean a mobile plan that had unlimited texts, calls and data and therefore the plans being compared offered the same amount of texts, calls and data, which we understood was the case.
We acknowledged that mobile phone providers might offer additional benefits, which would likely vary between providers, as would the relative importance individual consumers would place on the different benefits and features providers offered. However, we did not consider that, within the context of the ads which strongly emphasised price and did not mention any additional benefits, consumers were likely to consider other factors such as network coverage, trade-in options or warranties as being relevant when considering which iPhone deal was the “best value”.
Because we considered consumers would interpret the “best value” claim in the ads to mean that Three Mobile offered the cheapest unlimited iPhone 16 deal in the UK, and we understood that this was the case, based on the data set out in the comparison table on Three’s website, which had been checked by Three Mobile on the date on which the ads were seen, we concluded that the claim was not misleading.
We investigated the ads under CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1 (Misleading advertising), 3.33 and 3.35 (Comparisons with identifiable competitors) and 3.39 (Price comparisons), but did not find them in breach.
Action
No further action necessary.
