Background
Summary of Council decision:
Three issues were investigated, all of which were Upheld.
Ad description
A website, www.qltsadvantage.com, for QLTS Advantage, a Qualified Lawyers Transfer Scheme (QLTS) training course provided by City Law School, University of London, seen on 22 August 2019, stated "#1 QLTS provider", "#1 real QLTS training school", “#1 The only QLTS School with Live Tuition” and "ranked ‘top ten’ in the UK for graduate employment and operates one of the best law schools in the world".
In a banner at the bottom of the website, under the heading “QLTS Overview”, text stated “Highest pass rates – ever – in both MCT and OSCE most recent exams”. The home page stated “6000+ Happy Clients”.
Issue
The QLTS School challenged whether the following claims were misleading and could be substantiated: 1. “#1 QLTS provider”, “#1 real QLTS training school”, “#1 The only QLTS School with Live Tuition, “ranked ‘top ten’ in the UK for graduate employment and operates one of the best law schools in the world” and“ Highest pass rates – ever – in both MCT and OSCE most recent exams”; and 2. “6000+ Happy Clients”. 3. They also challenged whether the claims “#1 QLTS provider”, “#1 real QLTS training school”, “#1 The only QLTS School with Live Tuition”, “ranked ‘top ten’ in the UK for graduate employment and operates one of the best law schools in the world” and “Highest pass rates – ever – in both MCT and OSCE most recent exams” were verifiable.Response
Solaw International Ltd t/a QLTS Advantage said that because their company was based in the United States, the ASA had no jurisdiction over the matter. They said that their customers signed up for QLTS Advantage courses online and that they did not have a way of knowing where they were located at the time of purchase. They estimated that 95% of their customers were foreign because they had billing addresses outside of the UK.
In the first instance, QLTS Advantage did not provide a substantive response to the complaint. They subsequently made some changes to their advertising. QLTS Advantage said they used “#1” to mean various things, as they did similarly with the term "Real" throughout the site.
Assessment
In assessing whether the advertising was within the remit of the CAP Code, the ASA had regard to the Scope of the Code, and in particular, section II.c, which stated that the ASA would take action against direct marketing communications that originated outside the United Kingdom and promotions and marketing communications on non-UK websites, if they were targeted at UK consumers, and if the country from which they originated did not have an equivalent self-regulatory authority.
The ASA understood that the QLTS examination was aimed at foreign-qualified lawyers who wanted to qualify as UK-accredited solicitors so that they could practise in the UK and that advertising for QLTS training providers generally might therefore have a global reach.
We consulted the Solicitor’s Regulation Authority (SRA), the regulatory body for solicitors in England and Wales. We understood that the nature of the QLTS training course differed from provider to provider, but that most courses were done online. While the written element of the exam could be taken outside of the UK, the oral element was, in all circumstances, taken in London.
We understood that the SRA accredited one provider, Kaplan to administer the QLTS exam and while the SRA did not endorse any QLTS training providers nor regulate QLTS training, it wished to ensure that the market was fair. We understood from the SRA that, for example, there were non-UK nationals who worked in the UK as foreign-qualified lawyers at UK offices of international law firms who wanted to qualify as UK solicitors and would undertake QLTS training and exams.
We therefore understood that while many consumers would be abroad when they purchased the training course, a significant minority of consumers were physically in the UK when they purchased training for the QLTS.
We acknowledged that QLTS Advantage was based in the US and that they estimated that 95% of their customers were non-UK nationals. However, we considered that the nationality of those individuals or even their billing addresses would not confirm what percentage of QLTS Advantage’s consumers were physically present in the UK at the time that they purchased QLTS Advantage’s training course.
We told QLTS Advantage that in order to dissuade us of the view that a significant minority of their customers were present in the UK when they purchased their training course, they would need to provide us with robust evidence by way of comprehensive data which clearly showed what percentage of their customers were outside of the UK at the time they made their purchase of the training course and what percentage of customers were present in the UK. We understood that ordinarily, web analytics tools could provide that information. However, QLTS Advantage did not provide this.
Although QLTS Advantage was based in the US, we took the view that a significant minority of consumers would be likely to be UK-based at the time they saw and responded to the ad. For that reason and because there was no equivalent self-regulatory authority in the US to which we could refer the matter, we considered that, on balance, the case fell within our remit.
1. Upheld
We acknowledged the changes QLTS Advantage made in their advertising. However, we did not consider that the amendments and response provided were sufficient to resolve the case on an informal basis. The claim “#1 QLTS provider” appeared without further information to explain the basis for the claim. Text beneath the claim stated “with our highest pass rates – ever – in both the most recent MCT and OSCE sittings”; however, we considered that consumers would understand this to refer to the company’s own pass rates, and therefore it did not provide further insight into the basis of the comparative “#1” claim.
QLTS had stated that they used “#1” to mean different things throughout the site and we understood from their response that in this case it was meant to refer to their pass rates compared to those of other training providers. In the absence of clear qualification to explain that, we considered that the claim was likely to be understood by consumers to mean that QLTS Advantage had been objectively ranked as the top provider of QLTS training. The claim “#1 real QLTS training school” was followed by text stating “QLTS Advantage is the original, most experienced training provider for the QLTS assessments (MCT/OSCE). Partnered with a real [italics] Law School – CITY, University of London – our courses are created by university lecturers and professors”. While that listed a range of features which could be taken to mean that QLTS Advantage was superior to other providers, it was not clear on what the “#1” claim was based. It was also unclear what was meant by a “real” law school.
Furthermore, we had not seen any comparative evidence relating to QLTS Advantage and all its competitors to show that QLTS Advantage was the “original” or “most experienced” QLTS training provider. Overall, we considered that consumers were likely to understand the claim “#1 real QLTS training school” to mean that QLTS had been objectively ranked as the top provider of QLTS training. QLTS Advantage did not provide any evidence to demonstrate that was the case. We considered that the claim “#1 The only QLTS School with Live Tuition” was likely to be understood to mean that no other QLTS training provider offered live tuition. We therefore expected to see evidence relating to QLTS Advantage and all other competitors on the market. QLTS Advantage did not provide any evidence to substantiate that claim.
We noted that the claim that City, University of London, was ranked “‘top ten’ in the UK for graduate employment” and operated one of the best law schools in the world appeared without any explanation for the basis of the claim. We considered that in the absence of further qualification, readers would interpret the claim to mean that City University had been objectively ranked in the top ten in the UK for graduate employment and had objectively been ranked as having one of the top law schools in the world. QLTS Advantage did not provide any explanation for the basis of those claims or evidence to substantiate them.
We noted that the claim “highest pass rates – ever – in both MCT and OSCE most recent exams” appeared at the bottom of the home page, under the heading “Why QLTS Advantage.” We considered that, in the absence of further qualification, consumers would interpret the claim “highest pass rates – ever – in both MCT and OSCE most recent exams” to mean that QLTS Advantage’s students had higher pass rates than students of any other QLTS training provider. We considered that there was insufficient information available on the page for the consumer to infer what was meant by the claim, for example, whether the claim was a comparison against QLTS Advantage’s previous pass rates or whether it implied that they had the highest pass rates of all their competitors. Under the claim was the text and clickable link “Read more” which took the reader to a separate web page titled “About us.” A further link labelled “Pass rates” took consumers to the FAQ page of the website, which featured further information about QLTS Advantage’s pass rates. However, it did not include information regarding the pass rates of all other individual QLTS training providers, or the methodology used to determine the overall pass rates cited. In addition, the page stated that QLTS Advantage’s pass rates were based on self-reported data from their own students, which we considered may not reflect the actual pass rate for all QLTS Advantage-trained delegates who sat the exams. In any case, that information was two steps removed from the original claim.
We considered that the comparative claims, as consumers were likely to understand them, had not been substantiated and were therefore misleading. On that point, the ad breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules
3.1
3.1
Marketing communications must not materially mislead or be likely to do so.
and
3.3
3.3
Marketing communications must not mislead the consumer by omitting material information. They must not mislead by hiding material information or presenting it in an unclear, unintelligible, ambiguous or untimely manner.
Material information is information that the consumer needs to make informed decisions in relation to a product. Whether the omission or presentation of material information is likely to mislead the consumer depends on the context, the medium and, if the medium of the marketing communication is constrained by time or space, the measures that the marketer takes to make that information available to the consumer by other means.
(Misleading Advertising),
3.7
3.7
Before distributing or submitting a marketing communication for publication, marketers must hold documentary evidence to prove claims that consumers are likely to regard as objective and that are capable of objective substantiation. The ASA may regard claims as misleading in the absence of adequate substantiation.
(Substantiation),
3.9
3.9
Marketing communications must state significant limitations and qualifications. Qualifications may clarify but must not contradict the claims that they qualify.
and
3.10
3.10
Qualifications must be presented clearly.
CAP has published a Help Note on Claims that Require Qualification.
(Qualification) and
3.3
3.3
Marketing communications must not mislead the consumer by omitting material information. They must not mislead by hiding material information or presenting it in an unclear, unintelligible, ambiguous or untimely manner.
Material information is information that the consumer needs to make informed decisions in relation to a product. Whether the omission or presentation of material information is likely to mislead the consumer depends on the context, the medium and, if the medium of the marketing communication is constrained by time or space, the measures that the marketer takes to make that information available to the consumer by other means.
(Comparisons with identifiable competitors).
2. Upheld
We considered that consumers would understand the claim “6,000+ happy clients” to mean that the training offered by QLTS Advantage had helped more than 6,000 clients pass the QLTS assessments. We understood from the complainant that the QLTS assessments had been introduced in 2011, replacing an earlier set of exams for foreign lawyers intending to qualify in England and Wales known as the Qualified Lawyers Training Test (QLTT).
We understood that only around 2,000 students had completed the QLTS assessments since their inception, and not all of them would have undertaken training with QLTS Advantage. We noted that QLTS Advantage had modified the claim to “we’ve trained thousands of happy clients.” However, we had not been provided with evidence to demonstrate that that was the case. In the absence of evidence to show that QLTS Advantage had helped more than 6,000 clients pass the QLTS assessments, we considered that the claim had not been substantiated and was therefore misleading.
On that point, the ad breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules
3.1
3.1
Marketing communications must not materially mislead or be likely to do so.
and
3.3
3.3
Marketing communications must not mislead the consumer by omitting material information. They must not mislead by hiding material information or presenting it in an unclear, unintelligible, ambiguous or untimely manner.
Material information is information that the consumer needs to make informed decisions in relation to a product. Whether the omission or presentation of material information is likely to mislead the consumer depends on the context, the medium and, if the medium of the marketing communication is constrained by time or space, the measures that the marketer takes to make that information available to the consumer by other means.
(Misleading Advertising),
3.7
3.7
Before distributing or submitting a marketing communication for publication, marketers must hold documentary evidence to prove claims that consumers are likely to regard as objective and that are capable of objective substantiation. The ASA may regard claims as misleading in the absence of adequate substantiation.
(Substantiation), and
3.9
3.9
Marketing communications must state significant limitations and qualifications. Qualifications may clarify but must not contradict the claims that they qualify.
and
3.10
3.10
Qualifications must be presented clearly.
CAP has published a Help Note on Claims that Require Qualification.
Qualification).
3. Upheld
The CAP Code required comparisons with identifiable competitors to be verifiable. That meant that an ad which featured a comparison with an identifiable competitor or competitors needed to include, or direct a consumer to, sufficient information to allow them to understand the comparison, and be able to check the claims were accurate. We considered that in order to understand the basis of the comparisons in the claims “#1 QLTS provider”, “#1 real QLTS training school”, “The only QLTS School with Live Tuition and “City University London … is ranked ‘top ten’ in the UK for graduate employment and operates one of the best law schools in the world” consumers would need additional information.
As discussed in point 1, such information was not clearly provided in the context in which the claims appeared and consumers were not directed on how or where to find such information. We considered that in order to understand the basis of the claim “highest pass rates – ever – in both MCT and OSCE most recent exams”, consumers would need additional information; for example, whether the comparison had been made against QLTS Advantage’s previous exam results or their competitor’s exam results. While some information was available on the FAQs page, we considered, as discussed in relation to point 1, that it was not sufficiently prominent in relation to the original claim.
Furthermore, the information available did not include data on the pass rates of all individual competitors, and did not indicate the source or methodology used to calculate the overall pass rates cited.
We concluded that the claims were not verifiable and therefore breached the Code. On that point, the ad breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rule 3.35 3.35 They must objectively compare one or more material, relevant, verifiable and representative feature of those products, which may include price. (Verifiability).
Action
The claims must not appear again in the forms complained about. We told Solaw International Ltd t/a QLTS Advantage to ensure that they had adequate substantiation to support claims, including comparisons with identifiable competitors, in their marketing materials and that the basis of any comparison was presented clearly. We also told them to ensure that comparisons with identifiable competitors were verifiable.
