This is the end, beautiful friend: the ASA clamps down on misleading practices when changing and ending offers to consumers

In two series of rulings issued on 9 October 20224, the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) has ruled against misleading practices in relation to (i) end dates for discount promotions, and (ii) price changes in the course of subscription contracts.

End dates for price promotions

The CAP Code has lengthy but ambiguous rules on disclosing the end date of promotions. End dates are listed as a “significant condition” for promotions which should be disclosed (rule 8.17.4), but the same rule goes on to say that “[c]losing dates are not always necessary” (rule 8.17.4.a). If omitting a closing date, however, “Promoters must be able to demonstrate that the absence of a closing date will not disadvantage consumers” (rule 8.17.4.c).

In four decisions this week, the ASA has ruled that advertisers promoting discounts on products that were supposedly being withdrawn, but that remained available months later, should have included an end date on their promotions, and that failing to do so had misled consumers.

A theme throughout the ads complained of was that they stressed an urgent call to action, such as “Last Chance!” or “Shop Now!”, together with the bogus end-of-line claim. The advertisers could not, or did not, demonstrate that the absence of an end date did not disadvantage consumers, so the complaints were upheld.

Advertisers using discount promotions, especially those that contain an express or implied urgency claim, should ensure that they clearly display an end date for the promotion alongside the call to action. 

Mid contract price increases

Meanwhile, in a series of six rulings, the ASA has upheld complaints against telecoms companies in relation to how they displayed (or did not display) information on mid-contract price increases to consumers.

In each case the web pages in question did state that there would be annual price increase, and in most cases this fact, and the amount of the increase, was stated towards the top of the page. However, the ASA still upheld all of the complaints, for reasons including:

• That the price increase information was not stated alongside the main price claim.
• That the price increase information was not stated alongside each individual broadband package.
• That the full price increase information was only available by way of a drop-down box or an asterisk.
• That the price increase information was only included in body text, two “steps” down in prominence from the headline price claim.
• That the banner including the information was the same colour as the background web page, and was therefore insufficiently prominent.

From the description of each web page given in the ruling, these decisions seem harsh. The fact of the annual increase, and the amount, appears to have been fairly clearly stated in each case. The action point from these rulings is therefore to display information about price increases very prominently, alongside the main price claim wherever it occurs, in a sub-heading at least.

Traders dealing with consumers on subscription contracts should also be mindful of the new, stricter requirements around transparency and consumer consent on subscriptions in the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act, which are due to come into force in April 2026. In light of these rulings, and with the DMCCA in mind, advertisers of subscription services should consider reviewing how they display information on mid-contract price increases.

The ASA’s approach

Both series of rulings are products of the ASA’s proactive work on consumer issues. The rulings on end-of-line sales and discount claims were part of a wider piece of work on closing down claims for product ranges in social media ads, and were identified by the ASA’s AI-powered Active Ad Monitoring system. The subscription contracts rulings also formed part of a wider piece of work on mid-contract price rises, though this topic was identified for investigation following consumer complaints.

More than half of ASA investigations are now prompted by the ASA’s proactive work, rather than consumer or competitor complaints. This reflects the ASA’s proactive approach to monitoring and regulation. Advertisers should therefore be aware that, even if they feel a consumer complaint is unlikely, there is a significant prospect of the ASA starting an investigations proactively.