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:
Five issues were investigated, all of which were Upheld.
Ad description
A paid-for Facebook ad and a website for Velora London, an online clothing retailer:
a. The Facebook ad, seen in October 2024, was headed “Velora London”. Text stated “Dear friends and loyal customers, It’s with a heavy heart that we say goodbye and we want to thank you for all your support. We’re celebrating with a big sale on our beloved jackets […] This is your last chance to get your hands on these unique and warming garments. Come by and buy before we close our doors for good. We hope to see you one last time – thank you for joining us on our journey. With love and gratitude, Sophie from Velora London”. The ad linked to a page on the website, www.velora-london.co.uk.
b. The website www.velora-london.co.uk, seen in October and November 2024, featured a banner at the top of each page stating “Velora London”.
Text on the home page stated, “Free Shipping with Royal Mail […] 30-Day Money Back Guarantee […]”. It gave the contact email “[email protected]” and “Covent Garden, London” appeared alongside a location pin.
Text on a “Shipping Policy” page stated “[…] we have an average delivery time of 5-10 working days for orders in the UK […]”.
Another page featured a listing for the “Hannah Woven Hoodie Jacket”. It included images of a woollen hooded jumper in various colours. Text stated “This turtleneck in delicate Merino wool may be the softest thing you've ever worn […] Impeccable knit from fine Merino wool […] Stress-Free Returns Within 30 days […] Our Guarantees. Are you not satisfied? Then get your money back! We stand behind our products which is why we offer a ‘100% money-back guarantee’: 30 days after receiving the product you have the right to return it […]”.
Issue
The ASA received three complaints:
- Three complainants, who understood the company was based in China, challenged whether the ads misleadingly implied that the company was based in the UK.
- One complainant, who understood that items were shipped from China, challenged whether the claim in ad (b) “we have an average delivery time of 5-10 working days for orders in the UK” was misleading and could be substantiated.
- One complainant, who experienced difficulties returning products for a refund, challenged whether the claims in ad (b) “30-Day Money Back Guarantee”, “Stress-Free Returns Within 30 days” and “we offer a ‘100% money-back guarantee’: 30 days after receiving the product you have the right to return it” were misleading and could be substantiated.
- Two complainants challenged whether the claims in ad (b) that the Hannah Woven Hoodie Jacket was made from Merino wool were misleading and could be substantiated.
- The ASA challenged whether by omitting the identity and geographical address of the marketer, ad (b) breached the Code.
Response
Persons(s) unknown t/a Velora London did not respond to the ASA’s enquiries.
Assessment
The ASA was concerned by Velora 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
Ad (a) was headed “Velora London”. It included a link to a website, www.velora-london.co.uk and a reference to “Sophie from Velora London”. Ad (b) was the website, which had the domain name www.velora-london.co.uk. It included a banner at the top of each page stating “Velora London”, reference to “Free Shipping with Royal Mail” and UK deliveries, the contact email “[email protected]” and the text “Covent Garden, London” alongside a location pin. The ASA considered that consumers were likely to understand from those elements of ads (a) and (b) that Velora London was based in the UK and, specifically, London.
Velora London did not confirm their geographical business address and we understood from the complainants that they were based in China.
Because ads (a) and (b) gave the impression that the company was based in London, UK, when we understood that was not the case, we concluded that the ad was ads were misleading.
On that point, ads (a) and (b) breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1 and 3.3 (Misleading advertising).
2. Upheld
We considered consumers would understand the claim in ad (b), “we have an average delivery time of 5-10 working days for orders in the UK”, to mean they could expect their order to arrive in around that number of days.
We had not seen evidence to show that Velora London adhered to those delivery times and we understood from the complainants that because Velora London’s products were shipped from China, delivery to the UK took longer than 5-10 working days. In the absence of such evidence, we considered that the claim in ad (b) “we have an average delivery time of 5-10 working days for orders in the UK” had not been substantiated and concluded it was misleading.
On that point, ad (b) breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1 (Misleading advertising) and 3.7 (Substantiation).
3. Upheld
The CAP Code stated that marketers must promptly refund consumers who made valid claims under an advertised money-back guarantee.
We considered consumers would understand the claims in ad (b), “30-Day Money Back Guarantee”, “Stress-Free Returns Within 30 days” and “a ‘100% money-back guarantee’: 30 days after receiving the product you have the right to return it”, to mean they could return their items within 30 days if they were not satisfied with them for any reason and obtain a refund.
We had not seen evidence to show that Velora London had refunded money to consumers under the money-back guarantee. In the absence of that evidence, we considered that the claims regarding the money-back guarantee in ad (b) had not been substantiated and concluded they were misleading.
On that point, ad (b) breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1 (Misleading advertising) and 3.55 (Guarantees and after-sales service).
4. Upheld
We considered that customers would understand the claim in ad (b) that the “Hannah Woven Hoodie Jacket” was “in delicate Merino wool” and an “Impeccable knit from fine Merino wool” to mean the jacket was made from Merino wool.
We had not seen evidence to show that the Hannah Woven Hoodie Jacket was made from Merino wool. In the absence of such evidence, we considered that the claim had not been substantiated and concluded that it was misleading.
On that point, ad (b) breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1 (Misleading advertising) and 3.7 (Substantiation).
5. 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, material information included the geographical address of the marketer.
Ad (b) contained quoted prices for advertised products. While the ad did include an email address, it omitted the geographical address from which the company operated. 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 (b) breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.3, and 3.4.2 (Misleading advertising).
Action
Ads (a) and (b) must not appear again in the form complained of. We told Person(s) unknown t/a Velora London to ensure their advertising did not misleadingly state or imply 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 told them to ensure their advertising claims, including but not limited to claims about materials used to make products, delivery times and money-back guarantees, were not misleading and could be substantiated. We referred the matter to CAP’s Compliance team.
CAP Code (Edition 12)
1.7 1.7.1 3.1 3.3 3.7 3.55 3.4.2
