Marketing Matters | Review of November 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 November's ASA rulings.
• Other top ASA stories.
• CMA news for the same period.

ASA rulings – key takeaways for your A&M departments

In November, the ASA handed down 31 rulings (a 50% jump from October, but still fewer than the summer months). We have highlighted some of the key rulings we think you and your A&M departments should be aware of.

Random-item purchasing in mobile games

The ASA has published three rulings against three mobile game developers in relation to random-item purchases (also known as "loot boxes"), where customers can spend real money to receive randomised in-game items. In all three cases, the games' App Store pages amounted to misleading advertising.

In the first two cases, the App Store pages did not disclose that the games contained random-item purchases contrary to CAP Guidance, so the App Store pages for the games were misleading (breaching CAP Code 3.1 and 3.3).

In the third case, the publisher had disclosed that the game contained random-item purchases – however, the disclosure was towards the bottom of the game's description and could only be seen by expanding the description on the store page. The ASA found this insufficient; the disclosure was "too far from the main call-to-action", and needed to be more prominent. The storefront for random-item purchases (represented by a spinner wheel with 12 equally-sized segments, each showing a different possible item) was also misleading. The equal segments implied an equal chance to receive each item, which was not the case. The actual odds could be viewed by pressing a question-mark button on the storefront, but the ASA found that this was not clear enough.

Advertisers must be careful when advertising in-app purchases. Clear and prominent disclosure is key, and information about in-app purchases (especially those with random elements) must be prominent. The relevant information being available but not obvious is insufficient.  

Hotel room prices

The ASA has published four rulings relating to the availability of advertised prices for hotel rooms. These rulings stem from a wider investigation prompted by the ASA's AI-powered Active Ad Monitoring System identifying hotel price adverts as potentially rule-breaking.

All four of the rulings related to adverts generated by Google for hotels. The adverts were produced based on price data taken automatically from the hotels' systems, and in all four cases offered consumers rooms in specific hotels "from" a set price.

The ASA's position was that, because the adverts did not include any conditions or qualifications, consumers would understand the adverts to mean that a significant number of rooms were available in the hotel across a range of dates at the advertised price. On this basis most of the adverts were found to be misleading. In one case, the advertised price was only available on a single day; in a second case, there were insufficient rooms available at the advertised price across the range of dates.

There was only one advert where the complaint was not upheld. In this case, the hotel produced pricing and booking data to show that the advertised price was consistently available across a six-month period. This shows the high bar that advertisers must meet to prove that similar adverts are not misleading. If this bar cannot be met, advertisers must qualify their adverts appropriately. Advertisers also remain responsible for third-party automatically-generated adverts if the advertiser has provided the data to allow the advert to be generated.

Mini-cooler effectiveness

Similar to the hotel price investigation, this was a series of linked rulings stemming from an investigation prompted by the ASA's AI Active Monitoring System. This piece related to misleading and exaggerated claims made in online adverts for portable fans.

Each of the four rulings followed a similar pattern. The advertisers published adverts claiming that the fans could rapidly cool any room at a fraction of the energy usage of a conventional air conditioning system (for example, one of the adverts claimed that the product could cool any room up to 36m² instantly, using 90% less electricity and costing 98.7% less than an air conditioner). However, none of the advertisers provided any evidence for their claims either in the advert or in response to the ASA. As such, the ASA ruled that all of the adverts were misleading (CAP Code 3.1), unsubstantiated (CAP Code 3.7), exaggerated (CAP Code 3.11), and inaccurately compared the products to conventional air conditioning (CAP Code 3.32).

This is a good reminder that, regardless of the product, the ASA is likely require advertisers that make improbable claims about a product to be able to support those claims with documentary evidence. This is especially true with the ASA's ongoing deployment of AI to proactively identify rule-breaking adverts; even adverts that would normally slip under the radar may now be subject to scrutiny.  

Key takeaways

• Ensure that all relevant information about in-app purchases (especially random-item purchases) is prominently displayed, both at point-of-download and point-of-purchase.
• If a price for a product/service is advertised, that price must be available on a substantial number of the advertised things across a broad range of time (unless the advert qualifies this). If the advert is not qualified, the ASA will expect to see evidence of the price's broad availability.
• For adverts displayed by a third party, the limitations of that third party's ability to display full information is not a defence for advertisers. Ultimately, advertisers are responsible for adverts that are produced in their name.
• There appears to be a trend towards themed investigations and linked rulings as the ASA deploys its AI monitoring systems. Advertisers should expect more scrutiny of their adverts even if no complaints are made, especially in focus areas.

Top ASA stories last month

Ho Ho No's in Christmas advertisements

With Christmas fast approaching, the ASA has warned advertisers to be mindful of compliance when promoting their seasonal campaigns. Here are some key compliance-related takeaways:

• Socially responsible advertising: CAP Code rule 1.3 requires adverts to be socially responsible and not to trivialise credit risks. Past rulings found loan promotions such as "Cherish every moment…with an affordable loan" and "save the Christmas stress with a PCCU Christmas loan" breached this rule by encouraging excessive borrowing.

• Avoid pressure tactics: advertisers should take care to ensure their adverts do not apply pressure on consumers to spend. For example, one advert – which featured a mother whose child wanted branded trainers for school implied that buying on credit was the solution to avoid social embarrassment - exploited parental anxieties and was thus found to be in breach of the Code.

• Budgeting matters: promotions must not make light of budgeting or encourage consumers to ignore financial limits. Social media posts joking about using BNPL (Buy Now, Pay Later) for non-essential items have also been found to breach the Code.

Advertisers must ensure that their adverts do not encourage irresponsible spending, apply pressure on consumers to spend or trivialise credit risks.

Advertising alcohol alternatives and zero alcohol products

In recent years, there has been a growing market for alcohol alternatives (drinks at or below 0.5% ABV) and zero-alcohol products. Although the alcoholic sector as a whole is generally compliant, alcoholic alternative adverts have seen more breaches. This rise in compliance issues could be in part due to the fact that these products are newer to the market, and thus the companies selling them may not be as familiar with the rules.

CAP Code rules (18.18- 18.24) and BCAP Code rules (19.19-19.25) explicitly cover alcohol alternatives, requiring advertisers to treat them with the same care as alcoholic drinks.

The ASA has issued some advice for advertisers of alcohol alternatives:

• Ensure ABV levels are displayed clearly: adverts must include a prominent statement of the product's ABV since alcohol alternatives can range in percentage from 0% to 0.5%, and some consumers may wish to avoid even trace amounts of alcohol.
• Ensure adverts are socially responsible: adverts must not present alcohol alternatives as a way to increase alcohol consumption beyond responsible levels, not contain references that disparage sobriety. Moreover, adverts cannot be likely to appeal particularly to under-18-year-olds and the people shown in the advert must not be or appear to be under 25 years old.

Recent CMA activity

The CMA has opened investigations into eight companies – including ticket vendors, furniture and home goods retailers and driving schools – over concerns about online pricing practices such as hidden fees ("drip-pricing"), misleading countdown clocks and pressure-selling tactics.

Specifically, the CMA outlined the reasons for its investigations into the 8 companies:

• 2 secondary ticketing sites are under review in relation to the mandatory additional charges applied when customers purchase tickets.
• 2 driving schools are being investigated over their presentation of mandatory fees on their sites.
• A fitness centre company is being investigated over its presentation of a one-off joining fee for its annual membership.
• Homeware retailers are being investigated to determine whether their time-limited sales ended when they stated they would, and whether customers are automatically opted-in to additional services.

At this stage, the CMA has not reached any conclusions as to whether the above companies have infringed consumer protection law.

The investigations come after a major cross-economy review of more than 400 businesses in 19 different sectors to assess compliance with price transparency rules. The investigations are the first enforcement cases to be launched by the CMA under the new Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2025 (DMCCA). The DMCCA grants the regulators strengthened consumer protection powers by enabling it to decide whether consumer laws have been broken, rather than having to go through the courts. If the CMA finds such infringement, it can order businesses to pay compensation to affected consumers, and fine companies found to be in breach up to 10% of their global turnover.

In addition to launching enforcement action, the CMA has published new guidance and is also sending advisory letters to 100 companies operating in various sectors where the CMA has identified potential online pricing concerns. These companies have been put "on notice" and now must review their practices to ensure they are compliant with the law.