Marketing Matters: Review of April 2025

Welcome to this month's edition of Marketing Matters, where we look at advertising and marketing (A&M) trends in the retail and consumer sector.

We will be looking at:

• Some of the key takeaways for A&M departments following April's ASA rulings.
• Other top ASA stories.
• CMA news for the same period.

ASA rulings – key takeaways for your A&M departments

In April, the ASA handed down 37 rulings. We have highlighted some of the key rulings we think you and your A&M departments should be aware of.

On 7 April 2025, the Advertising Codes were updated in light of the introduction of the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024 (“DMCCA") to reflect relevant changes introduced by the new legislation. The ASA will continue to consider complaints made prior to 7 April 2025 under the wording of the old rules. April's rulings will, therefore, be a mixed bag using both the old and new rules.

Location, location, location

Of the 37 rulings, 5 were criticised by the ASA for failing to include the geographical address from which the business operated. The rulings form part of a wider piece of work on ads from companies which give the impression that they are based in the UK but are actually based overseas.

In one ruling, a fashion retailer's website featured text at the top of the home page stating the brand name followed by "LONDON”. The home page also featured a photo of a London street with a London bus, Union Jack flags and red telephone boxes. The retailer's refund policy, again available on their website, explained, “As part of our commitment to customer satisfaction, we accept returns to our UK warehouse and provided a customer information email address containing 'london.co.uk'. However, the 'shipping in transit' section of the same web page referred to “shipping process from Asia”.

The ASA received two complaints from customers who challenged the ad as misleading for implying that the company was based in the UK. Only after ordering did they understand that the company shipped goods from China. In its ruling, the ASA considered whether by omitting the identity and geographical address of the marketer, the ad breached the Code.

Not only did the ASA flag the retailer's lack of response, as an apparent disregard for the Code, it considered that customers were likely to understand from the organisation's website photos, the website's URL being a co.uk domain and the company's email address, that the advertiser was based in the UK. The inclusion of “shipping process from Asia" was not considered to be sufficiently prominent to counter the customer impression given by the other elements described above. Further, there was no information on the website regarding the geographical address from which the advertiser operated.

The ASA concluded that the ad omitted material information about the advertiser’s geographical location and misleadingly implied that the advertiser was based in the UK, when that was not the case.

Related rulings on similar geographical location claims/omissions can be found here.

Accusations or legitimate comparisons?

A dog food company received a complaint relating to two Instagram posts. In the advertisements a celebrity made the following claims:

• that vets are said to be paid up to £30,000 to promote kibble
• the glycotoxins in “ultra processed” kibble “lead to cancer, diabetes, kidney failure”
• that “chicken meals can legally be made from animals which are already dying, dead or diseased”
• referred to other specific dog food brands, by name and using their logos, as "the Kibble Cartel" with imagery of Pablo Escobar and suggestions of corruption

The complainant, a dog food nutritionist, also challenged whether the two ads discredited or denigrated the organisations called out by name in the videos. 

The ASA considered, in relation to the company's claims on the fees paid to veterinary professionals, customers would interpret the allegation as suggesting that members of the trade body UK Pet Food were financially incentivised to recommend certain pet food brands. The position was reinforced by the ad advising consumers to "check…the cartel's payroll" before taking nutrition advice from their vet.

With reference to glycotoxins contained in some kibbles, the ASA emphasised consumers would understand the claim to mean that dry dogfood contained levels of glycotoxins that posed significant health risks to dogs (as mentioned above) and encourage dog owners to seek alternative products. The abstract of a PhD thesis provided as supporting evidence by the company was not an adequate substitute for the full published version. The ASA considered that while some of the evidence indicated that some levels of glycotoxins were present in ultra processed kibble, the evidence did not indicate that they posed significant health risks to dogs.

When assessing the "chicken meal" claim, the ASA considered that consumers would interpret the claim to mean that the competitor's product contained chicken made from dead, dying and diseased animals. The company were again unable to provide evidence to substantiate this claim, and basing their reasoning on overseas practices in comparison to the UK's was not appropriate as the company focused on comparing two products sold within the UK, which viewers of the videos would have reasonably understood to relate specifically to UK practices.

Further, the ASA highlighted that the CAP Code stated that marketing communications must not discredit or denigrate another product or marketer. It applies irrespective of whether or not the claim is true, if it appeared in a comparative advertisement. Ads which included comparisons with competitors which went beyond a robust and objective comparison of their products or services are at risk of breaching that rule.

Characterising the UK pet food industry and specific brands as "corrupt”, a “shadowy world”, “rotten to the core”, a “thinly veiled cartel”, and the “Kibble Cartel” went far beyond objective comparison and instead criticised the UK Pet Food and its members. The ASA ruled that all claims breached the Code as misleading and denigrated to competitor products.

The application of discount codes

A product page on a specialist pan company's website stated “£139.99 SAVE £190.01 Was: £330.00” for a set of pans. The ad featured images of the product with the superimposed text “RED HOT DEAL”. Under the images was further information including an email icon next to the claim “SIGN UP FOR 15% OFF”. Once clicked, the icon revealed a pop-up box which stated “Sign up for 15% off. That’s right… sign up and SAVE, instantly! T&Cs apply, excludes Clearance. Minimum spend applies."

A consumer raised a complaint with the ASA, as they were unable to use the 15% discount offer against the advertised product. The company acknowledges that the pop-up text should have also featured a disclaimer which made clear that 'RED HOT DEALS" were excluded from the 15% promotion and had updated the text to read “T&Cs apply, excludes Red Hot Deals & Clearance offers”.

The ASA noted that while consumers might have expected there to have been some exclusions when using a discount offer, the use of the claim on that page strongly implied that it could be used on the set of pans as the "SIGN UP" icon appeared directly under the images of the product, reinforcing the impression that the product was included within the discount promotion. If the discount was not to apply to "RED HOT DEALS", the ASA emphasised, that the 15% discount offer should not have appeared on the product pages of items included in that deal.

The ASA acknowledged that the “RED HOT DEALS” landing page on the website featured the text “These deals are already too hot to handle… so discount codes are not valid for these products”. However, it was possible for consumers to have accessed the individual product page for the pans without viewing the landing page and concluded that the ad was misleading.

Takeaways

The key takeaways from the ASA rulings this month are:

• Don't misrepresent or omit your geographical location: Be clear on where you operate from and do not omit this information or misleadingly present your operations as UK-based if that is not the case. The ASA's larger piece of work on these claims/omissions will likely see increased rulings in this area.
• Take care when referencing or comparing against a competitor's business or product: Regardless ofwhether the claim is true, discrediting or denigrating another's product or business as a whole runs the risk of being considered a breach of the CAP Code if comparisons go beyond a robust and objective comparison of their products or services.
• Be clear on which products are eligible and which are excluded from discount codes: The positioning of icons and accompanying text matters.

Top ASA stories last month

The Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024 – the published outcome of the CAP/BCAP consultation

On 6 April 2025, amendments to the advertising Code to align with the Unfair Commercial Practices (UCP) provisions in the DMCCA came into effect.

Though the key principles of misleading advertising underpinning the Code remain largely unchanged in the UCP provisions, the UCP provisions under the DMCCA now update and replace the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008.

Marketers, advertisers, retailers and those supporting them with professional services are encouraged to review the outcome of the consultation which outlines the outcome of CAP and BCAP's consultation on amendments to the advertising Codes. The rule changes came into force with immediate effect.

New guidance on environmental claims – being clear on emissions

The ASA continues to take a robust and relentless approach to environmental claims and greenwashing, reinforced by the use of its AI system to identify potentially non-compliant advertisements.

On 24 April 2025, the ASA published guidance which confirmed that the fundamental principle of environmental rules, is that “unqualified claims could mislead if they omit material information” (as per rule 11.1 of the CAP Code). In the guidance the ASA compared advertisements describing green initiatives, which may lead to reductions in emissions, to advertisements for companies in high-carbon sectors that focus only on their more environmentally beneficial work, without providing more context about the wider framework of a brand’s overall environmental impact. The ASA emphasised that the latter are likely to breach rule 11.1.

For the full guidance please follow this link. Additionally, key environmental claim / greenwashing rulings can be reviewed here.

CMA activity in April

The CMA's statement on their consumer enforcement regime under the DMCCA

On 10 March, a spokesperson for the CMA released a statement on its new enforcement powers under the DMCCA which came into force on 6 April 2025. Direct enforcement powers will mean that the CMA will be able to decide whether key consumer protection laws have been breached without having to take businesses to court and take direct action against businesses to tackle breaches of consumer law (i.e. through fines and redress). For further information on the CMA's new enforcement powers, please refer to our recent article.

The press release promised an approach document, published on 4 April 2025, and notes the CMA's refreshed mandate for consumer protection under the DMCCA. In relation to penalties in the first 12 months, we are told that stakeholders can expect the CMA to focus their action on ensuring harmful conduct is stopped quickly and that consumers are compensated.

The full approach document can be found here.