Background
This Ruling forms part of a wider piece of work on ads from companies which give the impression they are based in the UK, but are actually based overseas in countries such as China, identified for investigation following complaints received by the ASA.
Summary of Council decision:
Two issues were investigated, both of which were Upheld.
Ad description
Two paid-for Facebook ads and a website for Luxelle-London, an online clothing retailer:
a. The first Facebook ad, seen in November 2024, was headed “Luxelle-London”. It stated, “After many years of love and dedication to our boutique, Luxelle, we must now surrender […] the big giants […] continue to push small entrepreneurs like us to the sidelines […] sadly, our boutique can no longer keep up”. The ad included a photo of a woman working on a sewing machine and the text “CLOSING SALE”.
b. The second Facebook ad, seen in November 2024, also headed “Luxelle-London”, included the same opening text as ad (a). It was signed off “with love, Margaret and Edith” and referred to them wanting to spend time with their grandchildren.
c. The website www.luxelle-london.com, seen in November 2024, headed “LUXELLE LONDON”, stated “OUR STORY […] With heavy hearts, we're saying goodbye to our cherished online store […]”. Another web page, with the “RETURN AND REFUND POLICY” stated “[…] Before returning any item, please contact us by email to obtain the correct return address. This address cannot be obtained elsewhere, so it’s essential to reach out for accurate information […]”. The “TERMS AND CONDITIONS” web page gave the “Customer Service Email: [email protected]” and a “Chamber of Commerce Number: 87017857”.
Issue
- The complainant, who understood the company was based in China, challenged whether the ads misleadingly implied that the company was based in the UK.
- The ASA challenged whether by omitting the identity and geographical address of the marketer, ad (c) breached the Code.
Response
Person(s) unknown t/a Luxelle-London did not respond to the ASA’s enquiries.
Assessment
The ASA was concerned by Luxelle-London's lack of response and apparent disregard for the Code as well as their failure to provide their full name and geographical business address, which were in breach of CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 1.7 (Unreasonable delay) and 1.7.1 (Compliance). We reminded them of their responsibility to provide a response to our enquiries without delay and told them to do so in the future.
1. Upheld
Ads (a) and (b) were headed “Luxelle-London”. Ad (c) was the website, which had the domain name www.luxelle-london.com and was also headed “LUXELLE LONDON”. Ad (c) included the email address [email protected] and cited a Chamber of Commerce number for the company. The ASA considered that consumers were likely to understand from the repeated references to London in the headings, domain name and email address, the website's co.uk domain and the Chamber of Commerce number that the advertiser was based in the UK and, specifically, London.
Luxelle-London did not confirm their geographical business address and we understood from the complainant that they were based in China.
Because ads (a), (b) and (c) gave the impression that the company was based in London, UK, when we understood that was not the case, we concluded that the ads were misleading.
On that point, ads (a), (b) and (c) breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1, and 3.3 (Misleading advertising).
2. Upheld
The CAP Code stated that marketing communications must not mislead by omitting material information, hiding it, or presenting it in an untimely manner. For ads that quoted prices for advertised products, geographical address of the marketer is included within material information.
Ad (c) quoted prices for advertised products. The ad included an email address but not a geographical address from which the company operated. The refund policy stated that consumers were required to contact the company by email to obtain a return address for them.
We therefore concluded that because the ad, which quoted prices for advertised products, omitted material information about the advertiser’s geographical address, it breached the Code.
On that point, ad (c) breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.3, and 3.4.2 (Misleading advertising).
Action
The ad must not appear again in the form complained of. We told Persons unknown t/a Luxelle-London to ensure their advertising did not misleadingly imply that they were based in the UK and, where their ads quoted prices for advertised products, to include the geographical address from which they operated. We referred the matter to CAP’s Compliance team.
