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 for TalkTalk, www.talktalk.co.uk, seen in April 2024, featured the headline “Great news! We have the ideal plans for your home” and listed four different broadband packages.
Text for each of the different packages stated the cost and length of the contract: “Full Fibre 150: £129.0 a month until April 2025*” “24 month contract”;
“Full Fibre 500: £39.00 a month until April 2025*” “24 month contract”;
“Full Fibre 900: £49.00 a month until April 2025*” “24 month contract”; and
“Full Fibre 65: £28.00 a month until April 2025*” “24 month contract”.
Further down the webpage was a subheading that stated, “What happens in April 2025?”. Text underneath stated, “*The monthly price for your broadband plan will increase each year from April 2025 by the rate of inflation (the Consumer Price Index rate, published in January each year) plus 3.7%”.
Issue
The complainant challenged whether the presentation of the mid-contract price rises was misleading.Response
TalkTalk Telecom Ltd t/a TalkTalk believed the ad made clear next to each price statement that the advertised offer would only last until April 2025. They also said that, underneath the offers, further information qualified the nature of the price rises, explaining the amount and frequency that prices would rise.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 ad described different broadband packages alongside the corresponding price per month of each package. The prices were immediately followed by statements which stated that the price would be applicable until April 2025. We considered consumers would understand that the monthly price would be fixed until that date. However, we considered it would not be clear to them 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 after April 2025, the monthly price would increase by the rate of inflation plus 3.7%. We considered that information was material to a consumer’s decision to purchase or engage further with each of the packages. Whilst we acknowledged that text indicated that the monthly price was applicable until April 2025, we considered the main body of the ad did not make clear that the price would increase after that date, nor did it provide information explaining the nature of such an increase, both of which we considered to be material information.
We then considered the qualification located at the bottom of the webpage linked to by the statement “until April 2025*” in the main body of the ad. The qualification explained that the monthly cost of each package would increase after April 2025 and outlined the nature of that price increase - specifically, that it would increase by the rate of inflation plus 3.7%. However, because that material information was not included within the main copy of the ad or 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 click the “until April 2025” link, the information included in the qualification would have likely been overlooked because of its placement at the bottom of the webpage.
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 TalkTalk Telecom Ltd t/a TalkTalk 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.
