Background
Summary of Council decision:
Two issues were investigated, both of which were Upheld.
Ad description
A website, estavisas.co.uk, for a company that offered online applications for an ESTA visa, featured images on the home page of a man with a laptop, an airport departure lounge, a British passport and the Statue of Liberty. Text beneath the images stated "APPLY ONLINE", "TRAVEL TO THE U.S", "IMMIGRATION" and "WELCOME TO THE U.S" respectively. The ad included information beneath the following headings "The Visa Waiver Program", "What is ESTA?" and "Who Needs to Apply for ESTA?". Two links stated "APPLY NOW". One of the links was displayed on a background which featured the American flag. Both links led to an application form which required the applicant to enter their details. Text at the foot of the application stated "I, the applicant, hereby certify that I have read ... all the questions and statements on this application ... By clicking Submit Application, I acknowledge that I have read and agree to the USA eServices Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy. All sales are final. The cost of this application is £79.00 fully inclusive of both the US Government charges(currently $14.00) and our service fee. Please note, all sales are final".
Issue
The complainant challenged whether the ad was misleading because it:
1. gave the impression that it was for an official service, rather than a commercial service that incurred a significant fee; and
2. failed to make clear that applications incurred a significant fee in addition to the standard cost of an application.
Response
IQ Channels Ltd t/a www.estavisas.co.uk (www.estavisas.co.uk) did not respond to the ASA's enquiries.
Assessment
The ASA was concerned by www.estavisas.co.uk's lack of response and apparent disregard for the Code, which was a breach of CAP Code (Edition 12) rule 1.7 1.7 Any unreasonable delay in responding to the ASA's enquiries will normally be considered a breach of the Code. (Unreasonable delay). We reminded them of their responsibility to respond promptly to our enquiries and we told them to do so in future.
1. Upheld
We noted the home page included information such as 'What is ESTA?' and 'Who Needs to Apply for ESTA?' without qualification to make clear that the ad was for a commercial service, we considered the presentation of the home page implied that the ad related to an official ESTA service. We acknowledged that, upon clicking through from the home page, text within the terms and conditions that appeared beneath the application form stated 'The cost of this application is £79.00 fully inclusive of both the US Government charges(currently $14.00) and our service fee'. However, we considered that information was not given sufficient prominence, given that the home page implied that the ad related to an official ESTA service. Estavisas.co.uk was not an official ESTA service and because the overall presentation of the ad implied it was, we concluded that the ad was misleading.
On this point, the ad breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules
3.1
3.1
Marketing communications must not materially mislead or be likely to do so.
and
3.3
3.3
Marketing communications must not mislead the consumer by omitting material information. They must not mislead by hiding material information or presenting it in an unclear, unintelligible, ambiguous or untimely manner.
Material information is information that the consumer needs to make informed decisions in relation to a product. Whether the omission or presentation of material information is likely to mislead the consumer depends on the context, the medium and, if the medium of the marketing communication is constrained by time or space, the measures that the marketer takes to make that information available to the consumer by other means.
(Misleading advertising).
2. Upheld
As identified in point 1, we considered the impression created by the home page was that the ad related to an official ESTA service. In that context, we considered consumers would understand the fee for the service reflected the official service's charge only. Whilst we acknowledged that text within the terms and conditions, which appeared beneath the application form stated 'The cost of this application is £79.00 fully inclusive of both the US Government charges (currently $14.00) and our service fee', we considered that information was not given sufficient prominence given the impression created by the ad.
On that basis, we concluded that the ad was misleading.
On this point, the ad breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules
3.1
3.1
Marketing communications must not materially mislead or be likely to do so.
and
3.3
3.3
Marketing communications must not mislead the consumer by omitting material information. They must not mislead by hiding material information or presenting it in an unclear, unintelligible, ambiguous or untimely manner.
Material information is information that the consumer needs to make informed decisions in relation to a product. Whether the omission or presentation of material information is likely to mislead the consumer depends on the context, the medium and, if the medium of the marketing communication is constrained by time or space, the measures that the marketer takes to make that information available to the consumer by other means.
(Misleading advertising).
Action
The ad must not appear again in its current form. We referred the matter to CAP's Compliance team.
