Note: This advice is given by the CAP Executive about non-broadcast advertising. It does not constitute legal advice. It does not bind CAP, CAP advisory panels or the Advertising Standards Authority.
The word “guarantee” should not be used in a way that could confuse consumers about their legal rights but may be used colloquially provided the meaning is clear. Marketers should distinguish between offering a guarantee and making a claim that, for example, a certain level of performance is guaranteed. And marketers who cannot “guarantee” certain results should be careful not to imply they can. For example, the ASA has taken a dim view of marcoms that imply slimmers are guaranteed to lose weight (Paul McKenna Productions, 26 September 2007), homeworkers are guaranteed to make money (Ferrum UK Ltd, 24 October 2007) or tipsters are guaranteed to win (Sam O’Donnell Racing, 20 June 2007) etc.
Marketing communications must make clear each significant limitation to an advertised guarantee (of the type that has implications for a consumer’s rights). For example, if a warranty covers parts but not labour, marketers should make that clear. Similarly, if the guarantee applies only in certain circumstances or consumers have to fulfill certain criteria to validate their guarantee, that should be clear too. Marketers must supply the full terms before the consumer is committed to taking up the guarantee (Rule 3.54).
In 2004, the ASA found that a claim to offer a “comprehensive warranty” for a property search was misleading because it did not cover a seller if the search contained inaccurate information (SPH, 4 February 2004). Also, if they offer a money-back guarantee, marketers must promptly refund consumers who make valid claims (Rule 3.55).
Marketers might want to seek legal advice because legislation could apply, for example, The Supply of Extended Warranties on Domestic Electrical Goods Order 2005. Section 4 details the obligation on marketers to advertise the price of an extended warranty on domestic electrical appliances in newspaper advertisements and other printed publicity in certain circumstances.
Many marketers offer “lowest price guarantees” whereby they offer to beat or match competitors’ prices. The principles are similar: the claim should not mislead, significant conditions should be clear from the outset and the full terms of the guarantee should be available before purchase. The ASA has investigated those types of ‘guarantee’ many times. Marketers often confuse the claim “lowest price guaranteed” (where they do extensive monitoring and lower their prices in response to market movements) with the claim to offer a “lowest price guarantee” (where they will act if the consumer finds a price lower than theirs). See also entry on ‘Lowest price claims and promises’ for advice on claims such as “lowest prices guaranteed”.
Other typical pitfalls are the failure to include key information. In 2006, the ASA upheld a complaint against a “price beat guarantee”. Because the advertiser did not make clear that consumers had to provide written quotes for the same number of passengers on the same flight in the same booking class, the ASA concluded that the ad was misleading (The Flight Centre, 2 August 2006).
Last modified : 03 August 2010