Background
This Ruling forms part of a wider piece of work on mid-contract price rises, identified for investigation following complaints received. See also related rulings published on 9 October 2024.
Ad description
A webpage on the Plusnet website www.plus.net, seen in May 2024, featured headline text that stated, "Cash-saving Full Fibre broadband deals". Text under the headline stated, "Award-winning packages from just £24.99 a month and no activation fee. You'll be quids in. Increases 31 March". A box under the text allowed consumers to enter their postcode to check availability. Smaller text beneath that box stated, "Price rises each year on 31 March by Consumer Price Index rate of inflation + 3.9%". Once a postcode was entered a page with various broadband packages was displayed. Text at the top of the page stated, "Full Fibre straight to the home", under which smaller text stated, "Price rises each year on 31 March by Consumer Price Index rate of inflation + 3.9%". Five full-fibre broadband packages were listed further down the page. Text for each of the packages stated the download speed, cost and length of the contract. Smaller text directly under the individual prices stated, “Increases 31 March”.
At the bottom of the page, under the subheading “Here's the legal bit”, text stated, “You can see our full residential terms and conditions here", and included a hyperlink to the T&Cs. Further text stated, "The price for broadband, line rental, call plans and call charges will be increased each March from 2022 by the Consumer Price Index rate of inflation published by the Office for National Statistics in January of that year plus 3.9%. Other prices, content and terms may also change during your contract. See our CPI Plus 3.9% Guide", with another hyperlink to further information.
Issue
The complainant challenged whether the presentation of the mid-contract price increases was misleading.
Response
Plusnet plc said they had immediately qualified the monthly price seen in the headline claim on the postcode checker webpage, and that qualification stated the monthly price would increase on 31 March and had included the longer qualification in the same panel.
Regarding the price statements seen within the five full-fibre broadband packages, Plusnet said they understood that ASA guidance suggested it would be acceptable to link to price rise information immediately below any pricing claims. Rather than repeat such information for each of the broadband packages, they believed it would be more helpful for consumers to state the price increase in text above the broadband package details, so that it was seen before the monthly pricing was stated. Because they believed they had made the text more prominent by placing it above the monthly price claims, they did not think it had been necessary to include an asterisk to link to the copy. They believed that their approach complied with the ASA guidance.
Assessment
Upheld
CAP Guidance stated that the presence of and, if applicable, the nature of mid-contract price increases, were material information that consumers needed in order to make an informed transactional decision. Consequently, marketers were required to ensure that advertising for services that included mid-contract price increases included such information and that it was presented clearly and prominently. The guidance also stated that asterisks or links, which linked to information more than one ‘step’ below the price claim, were unlikely to give adequate weight to the significance of material information. The ASA assessed the ad in question against the Code.The postcode checker webpage included the claim “Award winning packages from just £24.99 a month”. The subsequent webpage, seen after a postcode had been entered, described various broadband packages alongside the corresponding price per month of each package. The prices seen for each individual package were immediately followed by statements that stated that the price would increase on 31 March. We considered consumers would understand that the monthly price would be fixed until that date. However, we considered that neither webpage made it clear to consumers how, or by what means, the monthly charge would be affected after that date.
We understood that all of the advertised broadband packages were subject to mid-contract price increases, and that each March the monthly price would increase by the rate of inflation plus 3.9%. We considered that information was material to a consumer’s decision to purchase or engage further with each of the packages. While we acknowledged that information on both the postcode checker webpage and below the monthly prices for each of the broadband packages indicated that the monthly price would increase on 31 March, we considered that the text did not make clear the nature of the price increase after that date. In any case, we considered that it would not be clear to consumers what the statement “increases 31 March” on the postcode checker page actually referred to, given the way it was set out on the page.
We acknowledged that both webpages contained further information which stipulated the nature of the price rise. However, we considered the text on the postcode checker webpage, which stated that prices would increase by the rate of inflation plus 3.9%, was significantly smaller, and removed from, the main headline price claim. Furthermore, we considered it would be easily overlooked due to its placement under the box in which consumers had to input their postcode. We therefore considered that it had not been clearly and prominently presented to consumers.
Next, we reviewed the text at the top of the webpage which presented the five available broadband packages and similarly stated that prices would increase by the rate of inflation plus 3.9%. We acknowledged Plusnet’s comments that they had included information about the price rise amount above the individual package details, to try to make clear to consumers that all packages were subject to the price rise. However, we considered that the information was not as prominent or as large as information included for each of the individual packages, and we noted that it was not located close to the price claim, which we considered did not give adequate weight to the significance of such information. We also noted that the information did not remain visible as the webpage was scrolled down, meaning that the packages could potentially be viewed while the specific price increase information was not visible on-screen. We further noted that the listings of the individual broadband packages did not provide information explaining the nature of the price increases, which we considered to be material information which should have been made clear to consumers considering the price claims in those listings. We therefore considered that information which detailed the nature of the price rise had not been prominently or clearly displayed.
We then considered the qualification located at the bottom of the broadband packages webpage under the heading “Here’s the legal bit”. The qualification explained that the monthly cost of each package would increase each March from 2025 and outlined the nature of that price increase; specifically, that it would increase by the rate of inflation plus 3.9%. Again, because that material information was not included within the listings for each broadband package, and because we did not consider that it was given equal prominence to the price claim within the webpage, we considered that it had not been prominently or clearly displayed. Furthermore, we considered that if consumers did not scroll down past the information on the broadband packages, the information included in the qualification would likely have been overlooked because of its placement at the bottom of the page.
Because the presentation of the mid-contract price increases was not presented clearly, we concluded the ad was likely to mislead.
The ad breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1 and 3.3 (Misleading advertising), 3.10 (Qualification), and 3.17 and 3.18 (Prices).
Action
The ad must not appear again in the form complained of. We told Plusnet plc to ensure that they made sufficiently clear that their broadband contracts would be subject to mid-contract price increases, and that information about the nature of such price increases was presented prominently.
