My product is better than yours: the role of comparative advertising in a competitive world
Whether its Coca-Cola claiming to have won the war against Pepsi; Apple claiming its Mac is cooler than the PC; Tesco claiming to be cheaper than Aldi and Lidl; or Lidl claiming to be ‘Like Brands. Only Cheaper’; comparative adverts can be deployed to great effect.
In a competitive market, a comparative advert can capture your consumers’ attention with the powerful message that your product is cheaper, faster, cooler or better than that of your competitors.
But comparative advertising is the subject of a complex legal regime of regulations, rules and case law. Getting it wrong can at best mean an ineffective campaign but at worst can result in, amongst other potential penalties, liability for trade mark infringement. This is because most comparative advertising campaigns will feature a third-party competitor’s trade mark without their consent.
The law concerning comparative advertising in the UK is governed by the triad of (i) the Business Protection from Misleading Marketing Regulations 2008, (ii) the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008, and (iii) the CAP Code, which is enforced by the ASA.
Complying with these rules will offer advertisers a defence to claims of trade mark infringement. So, what are these rules and how do you ensure you ensure you stay on the right side of the line?
Are you telling the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
The principle that adverts must not be misleading is at the heart of the legal regime concerning comparative advertising. It means that advertisers must ensure the claims they make are accurate and that advertisers do not mislead customers by omitting information or by presenting information in an unclear, unintelligible, ambiguous or untimely manner. The rules ensure that advertisers are not permitted to use deception to alter consumer behaviour and their purchasing decisions.
Whether an advert is misleading will be judged from the perspective of the consumer, not on the basis of the advertiser’s intention. The decision as to whether the presentation of information in an advert is likely to mislead consumer will depend on the context and factual circumstances of the case.
For example, the ASA found that claims by Electrolux that its “Intensity” vacuum cleaner was so powerful that it surpassed the “suction of the leading upright in the UK by over 50%” was misleading and breached the CAP Code. The ASA ruled that data which Electrolux had in support of its suction power was not sufficient to support the cleaning performance claims in its advert without Electrolux also having data to demonstrate the dust-removal ability of its product. Interestingly, the “leading upright” was accepted by all parties as being a comparison with Dyson, even though Dyson was not expressly referenced in the advert.
What’s in your shopping basket?
Supermarkets have traditionally sought to undercut one another on price by advertising that the same basket of goods is cheaper when bought from their stores than from their competitors. This type of marketing statement can have real impact, but advertisers need to make sure that they are comparing ‘like for like’ in order to avoid misleading consumers.
In one of the leading decisions, Lidl complained that an advert from Vierzon did not compare like for like when it made claims that 34 products listed in till receipts were cheaper at its stores. The case is authority for the principle that price comparisons for food products can be regarded as being like for like even if there are some differences between the food products in question - for example, in terms of the extent to which consumers may enjoy eating them; the conditions and place of production; the product ingredients; and the identity of the manufacturer of the goods; so long as the items in question are sufficiently interchangeable. The court held that to rule otherwise would be to effectively render it impossible for retailers to engage in comparative adverts relating to food products.
The theory was subsequently tested when Sainsbury’s complained that Tesco’s “Price Promise” campaign did not compare like for like because it did not take account of non-price differentials such as quality; sustainability; and other ethical matters when claiming its basket of goods was cheaper - for example including non-Fairtrade items in comparisons with Fairtrade items. The ASA, and subsequently the court on a judicial review, found that notwithstanding the different characteristics of some of the products appearing in the price comparison baskets, the items were still sufficiently interchangeable and therefore were fairly and lawfully comparable.
However, advertisers need to ensure that their shopping basket claims don’t stray into unfounded statements that their products are generally cheaper than those of their competitors. Aldi was found by the ASA to have breached that requirement in a campaign which did not make clear to the consumer that the comparison being made was between an Aldi shop and a largely branded shop at a competitor supermarket.
Can I just check…?
One key rule when it comes to comparative advertising is ensuing that consumers are provided with sufficient information to verify the claims being made. In the case of shopping basket price comparisons, this means describing the products in the baskets with sufficient particularity to allow the consumer to check the price claims made in adverts.
Information which allows consumer to verify claims made in comparative adverts must either be clearly set out in the advert itself, or a link or other sign-post should be provided to allow customers to check the information themselves.
To illustrate the ASA’s application of this rule:
- a complaint about an ad for a kitchen supplier which stated “The UK’s number 1 Kitchen Retails Specialist” was upheld because, whilst the advertiser could substantiate the claim, the advert did not include any information which would allow customers to verify the claim
- an advert for an iron supplement which stated “9/10 find Active Iron better tolerated” was ruled to be misleading because the advert did not include or signpost information which the ASA considered customers would need in order to verify the claim, including details of the specific supplements Active Iron was being compared against, or the fact that the claim was based on the results of a consumer survey, as opposed to a clinical trial
- the claim “best dishwasher tablet on test” which referred to a test carried out by consumer organisation Which? was considered to be a comparison with the other products tested, and which should have been made verifiable in the ad. The complaint about this ad was also upheld.
Have you proved your evidence?
Advertising claims based on tests or surveys need to provide consumers with sufficient information about the methodology, sample size, questions or other factors which form the basis for the claims made in the adverts.
Whilst the CAP Code is not prescriptive about sample sizes, it advises advertisers to ensure their sample is of a sufficient size to adequately support the claim being made in adverts. If a sample size is unlikely to be large enough to produce statistically significant results to substantiate a headline claim, the headline claim is likely to be considered misleading. This is because results from a statistically insignificant sample size may not truly be representative of the general population.
The CAP Code does not prohibit the use of extrapolated conclusions per se but advises caution when doing so. When making a claim based on extrapolated conclusions, the advert should make clear the basis of the claim and the advert should not mislead by exaggerating the results of the survey from which the conclusion is drawn.
Whilst there isn’t a specific requirement in the CAP Code for adverts to state sample sizes, that information should be included where omitting it would be likely to mislead customers. However, it will not always be sufficient for advertisers to rely on qualifying small print to disclaim a headline claim where the supporting data is unlikely to be statistically significant. That is because it is generally considered misleading for small print to be inconsistent with claims made in adverts.
Self-reported consumer data will not be sufficient to support a claim which would otherwise require objective substantiation. For example, the claim “80% of survey respondents said they saved money by booking their holiday through us” would be regarded as problematic by the ASA in the absence of robust sales data which demonstrated genuine savings were made by those referenced.
To compare or not to compare
The law absolutely sees a place for comparative advertising. The benefits for competition and consumers have been stated in numerous legal cases. However, there is a quid pro quo. If the law is going to allow advertisers to make use of their competitor’s trade marks in advertising, this is not a free pass. It comes with rules and responsibilities with which advertisers should familiarise themselves to make sure theirs is not an unlawful advert.
If you’d like to discuss any of these issues or have questions about the article, please contact Sarah Bazaraa in the Dispute Resolution team.
Sarah Bazaraa
Associate Partner, Dispute Resolution
T: +44 (0) 161 393 9029
M: +44 (0) 7920 237 599
Sarah is a director in the dispute resolution team and advises clients across a wide range of sectors, including claims in the High Court and the specialist Intellectual Property Enterprise Court. Sarah has extensive experience of advising clients on IP disputes, particularly in the fashion retail sector, including design right and copyright disputes and brand disputes such as trade mark infringement and passing off claims. Sarah also has experience in advising clients in relation to voicemail and computer hacking claims involving national newspapers, as well as in relation to comparative advertising claims and ASA complaints. She is ranked as a “Next Generation Lawyer” in The Legal 500 in the field of IP.
Protecting your business from discrimination claims
During these stressful times for those working in the retail sector, disagreements and conflicts between staff that may amount to discriminatory conduct are becoming all the more common. This article sets out how employers can protect themselves from liability for the actions of its employees which are contrary to the values and ethos of the business.
The year ahead for retail from a commercial property perspective
GGiven the continued uncertainty in the retail sector during these Covid stricken times, we look at the impact the pandemic is having on commercial property, including rent concessions; the Commercial Rent (Coronavirus) Bill; the effect of turnover rents; what next for shopping centres; and rent reviews.
Our quarterly retail update is designed to bring you the latest news and legal developments relevant to the retail sector. If there are any areas you would like more information on or if you have any questions or feedback, please do not hesitate to let us know via our feedback form or get in touch with any member of our team.
Copyright in this publication is owned by Pannone Corporate LLP and all rights in such copyright are reserved. Pannone Corporate LLP is a limited liability partnership registered in England and Wales with number OC388393. Authorised and Regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority. A list of members is available for inspection at the registered office, 378-380 Deansgate, Manchester M3 4LY. We use the terms “partner” to refer to a member of the LLP.