- with Senior Company Executives and HR
- with readers working within the Media & Information and Retail & Leisure industries
The ASA recently ruled that Pets Corner misled consumers by presenting its Pet Food Expert website as "100% unbiased", without making sufficiently clear that the site was owned by a pet food retailer with commercial interests in the products compared.
Pet Food Expert described itself as a fact‑based, independent resource helping consumers choose pet food. The site compared products, awarded ingredient scores and included "Shop Product" buttons linking users to purchase options. However, it only disclosed the fact that Pets Corner owned it in the FAQ and "About" pages.
A competitor challenged whether the site's independence claims were misleading.
The ASA's findings
The ASA found that the website was directly connected with the supply or transfer of goods, and its content did not constitute natural listings on a price comparison site. The website was therefore a marketing communication. Because it was owned by a retailer with an interest in featured products and linked directly to purchase options, the ASA found the site came within the CAP Code's scope.
The ASA said that the claim "100% unbiased" implied to consumers that the information on the site was compiled by people with no commercial involvement or interest in the pet food market. It therefore considered that consumers would believe the website's purpose was to provide an independent comparison service. However, that was not the case. Although it was used to compare products, it also had the effect of promoting products owned by Pets Corner.
According to the ASA, disclosure about the site's ownership was insufficiently prominent. It acknowledged that information about the ownership of Pet Food Expert was available on the "About" page of the website. However, it understood that the site could be navigated and used without viewing that section of the website and so it was insufficient to alter the overall impression created by the ad that the website was independent.
The ASA concluded that the site falsely implied Pets Corner was acting outside its business and failed to make its commercial intent clear. It breached rule 2.3 of the CAP Code on recognition of marketing communications; and rule 3.1 regarding misleading advertising.
Watch out for consumer law enforcement
Under the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024, a failure to identify commercial intent is a misleading omission, unless this is already apparent from the context. In addition, falsely claiming or creating the false impression that the trader is not acting for purposes relating to the trader's business is a prohibited commercial practice. The Competition and Markets Authority can take action under the Act, and unlike the ASA, issue significant fines, like the large fine handed out to the AA and BSM driving schools last month. If you need help with consumer law compliance, please contact a member of the team or consult our Consumer Law Hub.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
[View Source]
