Background
This Ruling forms part of a wider piece of work on land and property investments. In two of the cases, the ads were identified for investigation following intelligence gathering by our Active Ad Monitoring system, which uses AI to proactively search for online ads that might break the rules.
Summary of Council decision:
Three issues were investigated, all of which were Upheld.
Ad description
Two paid-for Facebook ads and a website for Land Profits, a land development and mentorship company, seen on 20 August 2024:
(a) The first paid-for Facebook ad stated, “We’ve already helped HUNDREDS make money with land in 2024! […] It’s So Simple, Just watch our FREE webinar! You Are Only ONE Land Deal Away From 6 Figure Profits! Below that was an image with superimposed text that stated, “OUR CLIENT MIKE GOT A £350K LAND DEAL WORKING WITH US Want to make a living with land? Want financial freedom? Watch our FREE Webinar”.
(b) The second paid-for Facebook ad stated, “We’ve already helped HUNDREDS make money with land in 2024! […] It’s So Simple, Just watch our FREE Master Class! You Are Only ONE Land Deal Away from 6 Figure Profits!” Below that was an image with superimposed text that stated “£6,000,000 PROFIT DONE BY OUR CLIENTS THIS YEAR! […]”
(c) A webpage that linked from ads (a) and (b), https://landprofitssystem.clickfunnels.com, stated, “Discover How to Make Six Figures with Land Investments – Even if You’ve Never Done It Before! Limited FREE Mini Masterclass Access We’ll show you how to find & sell your first land deal within 12 months, & we’ll work with you until you do… GUARANTEED!”. The webpage also featured testimonial statements and videos entitled “CLIENT RESULTS”. Text below stated, “Disclaimer: These testimonials are not expected to be considered as "typical results. These clients worked very hard following our system and worked closely with our team. We have had clients join our program, not follow our system and not have results. We unfortunately can't control human nature. The point of these testimonials is to let you hear from people that have had results so you can hear their story.”
The webpage included a video featuring a company director. She stated, “I am so excited to be sharing with you this life-changing property strategy planning uplift […] you need to watch my webinar below so that you can learn how you could be securing your future with planning uplifts […] This can look like anywhere from £100,000 worth of profits up to half a million pounds worth of profits and I’m going to be sharing with you in my webinar how you can make profits like this […]”
Issue
The ASA challenged whether:
1. ads (a) to (c) were misleading because they failed to illustrate the risks of the investments;
2. ads (a) to (c) were misleading because they did not make clear that past performance did not necessarily give a guide for the future and the examples cited were unrepresentative; and3. the profit claims in ads (a) to (c) were misleading and could be substantiated.
Response
Land Profits EDU Ltd t/a Land Profits said the ad was no longer appearing. They said they would ensure that future ads complied with the Code.Assessment
1. and 2. Upheld
The CAP Code required that marketing communications for investments made clear that the value of investments was variable and, unless guaranteed, could go down as well as up, and that past performance or experience did not necessarily give a guide for the future. The Code further stated that examples of past performance or experience should not be unrepresentative.
We understood that Land Profits offered mentoring, training and support to investors seeking to acquire and sell land for property development. Services they provided included finding land, negotiating deals, obtaining planning permission and selling on the land for a profit.
Ads (a) and (b) stated, “You Are Only ONE Land Deal Away From 6 Figure Profits” and ad (c) stated, “Discover How to Make Six Figures with Land Investments – Even if You’ve Never Done It Before”. However, the ads contained no text stating that the value of investments was variable and could go down as well as up.Ads (a) and (b) also stated, “We’ve already helped HUNDREDS make money with land in 2024!”. We considered that consumers would understand that many of Land Profits’ clients had profited in recent months. However, the ads contained no information to explain that past performance was not a guide for the future. Ad (a) also featured the claim “OUR CLIENT MIKE GOT A £350K LAND DEAL WORKING WITH US”. Ad (b) stated, “£6,000,000 PROFIT DONE BY OUR CLIENTS THIS YEAR”.
Ad (c) featured testimonial statements and videos entitled “CLIENT RESULTS.” Therefore, the ads also referred to the previous performance of individual land deals. We considered that consumers were therefore likely to understand that they could achieve similar amounts in future. The ads referred to making a living with land, financial freedom, a “life-changing property strategy planning uplift” and “securing your future”. In the context of those claims, which we considered suggested that consumers could achieve financial security for life through the investments, we considered that it was particularly important for ads to responsibly and realistically depict the profits that clients were likely to make. We noted, however, we had not seen evidence to show that the figures achieved were representative of the profits that could generally be achieved. We acknowledged that ad (c) stated that the testimonials should not be considered as "typical results”. However, that qualifying information appeared in small text which meant it could easily be overlooked. Additionally, it appeared only on the website landing page and not in the social media ads. We considered that information was not therefore presented immediately and clearly to consumers.Because the ads did not make clear that investments could go down as well as up, or that past performance did not necessarily give a guide for the future, and because we had not seen evidence to show that the examples of past performance were representative, we concluded that they were misleading.
On those points, the ads breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1 (Misleading advertising), 3.9 (Qualification), 14.4 and 14.5 (Financial products).
3. UpheldThe CAP Code stated that before distributing or submitting a marketing communication for publication, marketers must hold documentary evidence to prove claims that consumers were likely to regard as objective and that were capable of objective substantiation.Ad (a) stated, “OUR CLIENT MIKE GOT A £350K LAND DEAL WORKING WITH US” and ad (b) stated, “£6,000,000 PROFIT DONE BY OUR CLIENTS THIS YEAR!”.
Ad (c) referred to individual client results, to making six figures with land investments and stated, “This can look like anywhere from £100,000 worth of profits up to half a million pounds worth of profits”. We considered that consumers would expect Land Profits UK to hold robust evidence to support those objective claims.However, because we had not seen any evidence to support the profit claims, we concluded that they had not been substantiated and were misleading.
On that point, the ads 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 Land Profits EDU Ltd t/a Land Profits that their future advertising must make clear that the value of investments was variable and could go down as well as up. We also told them to make clear that examples of past performance or experience were not necessarily a guide for the future and to ensure that they were representative. Finally, we reminded them of the requirement to hold substantiation for the objective claims in their advertising.
