ASA rules computer screenshots insufficient to substantiate price claims in two cases

The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) told Out-Law.com that marketers may not be able to rely on screenshots showing the usual prices of product as a lone method for justifying discount claims.

Despite ruling in two recent cases that screenshots provided by marketers had not been adequate to justify claims of cut-price offers, the watchdog said that under some circumstances screenshots may offer sufficient substantiation of claims.

"The UK Code of Non-broadcast advertising (CAP) states that 'marketers must hold documentary evidence to prove claims that consumers are likely to regard as objective'," an ASA spokesperson told Out-Law.com. "It is not the case that screenshots would never be sufficient to substantiate claims, but it very much depends on the context and level of the claim."

"In some instances, screenshots could be taken out of context, and would not provide sufficient information relating to the claim, for example, the date or time of a particular claim appearing. Here the ASA might require further evidence, for example, to prove that a product was actually sold at a particular price. In such an instance, evidence might comprise of sales records or stock availability reports," the spokesperson said.

In two separate adjudications published on 30 May, ASA said that screenshots offered as evidence of the normal price for products had not proved adequate to substantiate claims made by website operators Gumtree and Wowcher about the standard prices for products. The websites displayed promotions for a range of products, including kitchen utensils and MP3 players, at apparently discounted prices.

Gumtree and Wowcher had provided screenshots from suppliers' websites in order to try and prove their claims about the standard prices of the goods.

In both the Gumtree and Wowcher cases ASA ruled that because the claims made about the usual prices could not be substantiated from a reading of the screenshots, the promotions being offered were misleading and in breach of advertising rules.

"We considered that, in order to substantiate such price claims, we would need to see documentary evidence, such as receipts or sales records, that the products were generally sold at the quoted pre-discount prices," ASA had said in its ruling in the Wowcher case. It came to an almost exact conclusion in relation to claims made on the Gumtree website.

ASA oversees compliance with the CAP Code, which sets out standards required of advertisers marketing via the mediums of print, on posters, in emails, text messages and in paid-for-space online, such as banner and pop-up ads or keyword advertising on search engines, as well as company websites and non-paid-for space online under the advertiser's control, such as social networking pages.

Under the CAP Code, marketing communications must not materially mislead or be likely to do so and marketers must hold "documentary evidence" to prove their claims made in those communications in order that the claims can be substantiated. The evidence must be sufficiently robust that consumers would likely regard it as objective and it must be "capable of objective substantiation."

The Code also contains rules on displaying prices within ads. Any statements marketers make on price "must not mislead by omission, undue emphasis or distortion" and "must relate to the product featured in the marketing communication." Price comparisons made must also not mislead consumers "by falsely claiming a price advantage." Any comparisons made with recommended retail prices (RRPs) will probably be said to be misleading if the RRP "differs significantly from the price at which the product or service is generally sold," according to the Code.