The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) has upheld two complaints against The Claims Guys, based in Cheshire.
Two sponsored ads, for the claims management company, which appeared in recipients’ ‘Newsfeeds’ on Facebook:
The first ad was headed “Bank Refund Applications”. Text stated “Lloyds TSB Customers: Refunds are being made to many people who have had a Lloyds TSB account, and have been mis-sold insurance sometimes without their knowledge. Please click below to start your application online …”. Underneath an image of buildings, with the text “LLOYDS REFUNDS” superimposed onto it, text stated “Lloyds TSB Account Refunds Ever had an account with Lloyds TSB?… bank-account-refunds.co.uk”.
The second ad was also headed “Bank Refund Applications”. Further text stated “Refunds for Lloyds Account Holders: A large number of policies were mis-sold alongside Lloyds loans and credit cards, and you could be entitled to a refund”. A cartoon image of people’s raised hands, against a dark green background, included the text “Don’t be the last to claim your Lloyds Refund”. Text underneath stated “Lloyds Refunds It’s possible that you could have paid f…[sic] bank-account-refund.co.uk”.
Lloyds Banking Group (Lloyds), in relation to both ads, and a member of the public, in relation to the second ad only, challenged whether the ads did not make the advertiser’s identity clear and misleadingly implied that the advertiser was Lloyds or was affiliated with Lloyds.
The Claims Guys Ltd said they were responsible for the first ad, and that the second ad had been published by an agency on their behalf. They said the ads, as described above, did not constitute the whole of the ads; rather, they were text boxes which were the opening text of ads which Facebook users accessed by clicking on the image. After clicking on the image the ads contained a clear reference to The Claims Guys. They further said that the ads stated clearly that they related to refunds for “Lloyds TSB customers” or “Lloyds Customers”. They believed none of the wording or branding suggested it was Lloyds that was offering the advertised service.
The ads, which were headed “Bank Refund Applications”, made various references to Lloyds or Lloyds TSB, and included the website addresses bank-account-refund.co.uk and bank-account-refunds.co.uk. The ASA acknowledged that clicking on the ads took Facebook users to a website which included the text “Your application will be handled by The Claims Guys Limited”, but we considered that separate website did not constitute part of the ads. The Claims Guys were not, therefore, identified in the ads themselves. The ASA considered consumers would understand from the ads that they related to a route by which they could obtain refunds from Lloyds, but considered they would not be able to identify from the information presented in the ads that The Claims Guys was the advertiser.
The ad watchdog noted the ads included factual information that refunds were available to consumers who had been mis-sold financial products, but did not make clear that the marketer was The Claims Guys, a claims management company that would require payment to pursue claims on consumers’ behalf. The ASA considered that in that context it was likely that a consumers’ decision as to whether or not to click through from the ad for further information was likely to be affected if they were aware that The Claims Guys was the marketer. It concluded the ads were therefore materially misleading because they omitted to make clear that The Claims Guys was the marketer.
On this point, the ads breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1, 3.3 and 3.5 (Misleading advertising)
On the second issue, the ASA noted the web addresses included in the ads did not include a reference to Lloyds, and considered it was therefore unlikely consumers would think the web addresses related to Lloyds. However, it considered the way in which the ads were worded, in combination with the use of repeated references to Lloyds and the use of a colour associated with the Lloyds brand, and the fact that The Claims Guys were not identified as the marketer, meant that it was also not clear that the marketer was not Lloyds or a company affiliated with Lloyds. In that context, the ASA considered the overall impression created by the ads was that the marketer was Lloyds, or a company affiliated with Lloyds. As a result, consumers would be more likely to respond to the ad than they otherwise would have if they had been aware of the identity of the marketer. Because that was not the case, the ASA concluded the ads were likely to materially mislead.
On this point, the ads breached CAP Code (Edition12) rules 3.1, 3.3 and 3.5 (Misleading advertising) and must not appear again in their current form. The ASA told The Claims Guys Ltd to ensure their ads did not mislead as to the identity of the marketer.
