Ad description
Two paid-for Google search ads for Petchip.Network, an online microchip database, seen in November 2024:
a. The first ad stated, “Enter Pet Microchip Number – Update Pet Microchip Details”. Additional text stated, “Register Dog Microchip, Register Cat Microchip, Change Microchip Info, Microchip Details”.
b. The second ad stated “Update Pet Microchip Details – Enter Pet Microchip Number”. Additional text stated “Register Dog Microchip, Register Cat Microchip, Change Microchip Info, Microchip Details”.
Issue
The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra), who believed consumers would understand from the ads that Petchip.Network was an approved database for registering microchipped pets, challenged whether the ads were misleading.
Response
Petchip.Network did not respond to the ASA’s enquiries.
Assessment
Upheld
The ASA was concerned by Petchip.Network’s lack of response and apparent disregard for the Code, which was a breach of CAP Code (Edition 12) rule 1.7 (Unreasonable delay). We reminded them of their responsibility to respond promptly to our enquiries and told them to do so in future.
The ASA understood that the Microchipping of Cats and Dogs (England) Regulations 2023, and the equivalent regulations for Scotland and Wales, and legislation in Northern Ireland, stated that all dogs (in the UK) and cats (in England only) must be microchipped and registered on a compliant database in order to comply with the legal requirement for animals to be microchipped. We understood that there was no singular database for registering microchipped animals in the UK; instead, databases declared themselves compliant with the regulations. Databases which complied with the regulations were listed on the respective government website and regulated by Defra in England, and their counterparts in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. We considered that, whilst consumers were likely to be aware that it was a legal requirement to register their pet’s microchip, they would not necessarily know that there were several different databases, or be aware of what standards a database should meet to comply with the relevant regulations.
The ads included the claims “Update Pet Microchip Details”, “Register Dog Microchip” and “Register Cat Microchip”. We considered that consumers would interpret the ad to mean that Petchip.Network was an approved database for registering microchipped pets, and that by registering their pet’s microchip on Petchip.Network, they had complied with the legal requirement to do so.
However, we understood that was not the case. We understood that Petchip.Network charged a fee for consumers to register their pet’s microchip information on the site. The consumer’s contact information would then be accessible to anyone who entered the relevant microchip details. We understood that Petchip.Network was not an approved database for the purposes of complying with the relevant regulations. We further understood from Defra that Petchip.Network was not, and had never sought to be, listed on the gov.uk website as a database which met English government standards.
Given the above, we concluded that the ads were misleading.The ads breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1 and 3.3 (Misleading advertising), and 3.9 (Qualifications).
Action
The ad must not appear again in the form complained of. We told Petchip.Network to ensure that they did not present their service in a way which was likely to misleadingly imply it was an approved database to comply with the legal requirements for the microchipping of cats and dogs. We referred the matter to CAP’s Compliance team.
