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 Virgin Media website www.virginmedia.com, seen in April 2024, detailed three different packages for “M250 Fibre” broadband. Headline text at the top of the page stated “M250: like 200Mb broadband, but faster”. Under the subheading “Here’s what you can get at your home”, text stated, “*Monthly price shown will increase each April from April 2025 by the Retail Price Index rate of inflation announced in February each year plus 3.9%”. Information about each package was displayed underneath, detailing what was included in each package, and the respective monthly cost, followed by an asterisk. Under each price there was a link titled “Find out more”. When the link was clicked, a list appeared comparing the offer prices to the current full prices. As the page was scrolled down, the information that the advertised prices would increase by the Retail Price Index rate of inflation plus 3.9% each year remained pinned to the top of the webpage.
Text further down the page stated, “*Monthly price of Virgin Media’s main services and O2 Airtime Plan will increase each April from April 2025 by the Retail Price Index rate of inflation announced in February each year plus 3.9%. Doesn’t apply to any add-ons you may have selected, out-of-bundle charges or admin costs, which may increase separately. See www.virginmedia.com/prices and www.o2.co.uk/prices for details”. That text was repeated at the bottom of the ad under a subheading entitled “The legal stuff”.
Issue
The complainant challenged whether the presentation of the mid-contract price increases was misleading.
Response
Virgin Media Ltd said they believed the ad was clear and transparent in relation to the annual mid-contract price increases and, in their view, did not breach the CAP Code.They highlighted that text at the top of the ad stated that the price would increase each April by the Retail Price Index rate of inflation announced in February of each year plus 3.9%, and that statement followed users down the webpage as they scrolled. As such, it enabled consumers to be able to see the price rise information when they were looking at the pricing of the different broadband packages, and each price for the multiple listings was linked to the visible price rise explanation by asterisk. Virgin Media also said they did not include any claims that stated or implied the price would apply for the minimum term and so therefore did not contradict the qualification or banner.
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 length of each contract (18 months) and the corresponding price per month of each package. The boxes containing the individual details for the different broadband packages did not contain any information stating that those prices would only be applicable until April 2025. Each price was followed by an asterisk which directed consumers to further information found underneath the list of packages. This information was repeated at the bottom of the page and it also referred to the pinned “sticky banner”, which remained visible as the page was scrolled down. However, the price claims and other information provided for each individual package did not state that the monthly price would be subject to an annual increase, nor the nature of that increase.
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 3.9%. We considered that information was material to a consumer’s decision to purchase or engage further with each of the packages.
We acknowledged that information regarding the price rise was included at the top of the page, before the listing of the packages, and that the information stayed pinned to the top of the page, in a “sticky banner”, as it was scrolled down. However, the banner was also on a white background, the same colour as the rest of the webpage, which we considered meant it blended into the page, and was not immediately distinguishable for consumers. Notwithstanding that, we considered that the information was not located sufficiently close to the monthly prices stated within the individual broadband package’s listings. We further noted that the listings of the individual broadband packages did not provide information explaining the nature of the price increases. As such, we considered it would not be sufficiently clear to consumers considering the price claims in the various packages that the featured monthly prices would increase before the end of the contract length, nor did the “sticky banner” prominently provide information explaining the nature of such an increase, both of which we considered to be material information.
We then considered the qualification located under the broadband package information at the bottom of the webpage, linked to by the asterisks after the prices in the individual broadband package boxes in the main body of the ad, and the “sticky banner”. The qualification explained that the monthly cost of each package would increase each April after April 2025 and outlined the nature of that price increase; specifically, that it would increase by the rate of inflation plus 3.9%. However, we considered that it had not been sufficiently prominently or clearly displayed, despite the presence of the “sticky banner”. Furthermore, we considered that consumers would not necessarily click on the “Find out more” link, or scroll to the bottom of the page, meaning that the information included in the qualification could easily have been overlooked because of its placement beneath the main body of the ad, and 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 its current form. We told Virgin Media Ltd 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.
