Misleading pricing in the spotlight: ASA Ruling comes shortly before DMCC Act consumer protection rules enter force

With the new consumer protection rules from the DMCC Act just around the corner, the ASA has issued another ruling that demonstrates the consequences of misleading pricing.

Haven Leisure Ltd, a holiday company, was put under the spotlight for a paid-for Facebook ad that clicked through to a Haven Leisure website ad. The ads offered 4 nights at Penally Court holiday park from £55 and £59 respectively. The small print attached to the Facebook ad clarified that this applied to Hideaway breaks outside of school holidays.

The complainant was unable to find dates at the advertised price points and so took issue with the ads, challenging whether the claims were misleading.

Response

Haven claimed that there should have been five dates available at the advertised prices. In reality, only one Hideaway break was available to book as two breaks had sold out and two had been incorrectly priced too high. This was compounded by limited capacity at Penally Court, compared to other Haven Leisure caravan parks, which meant that one booking could cause the advertised price points to sell out completely.

Haven Leisure said that they had removed the price claims for Penally Court and would ensure that promotional prices were dynamically updated in the future.

Assessment – Upheld

The ASA considered that consumers would have understood the two claims as meaning that there would have been a significant proportion of breaks at the advertised price points. The ASA noted that the reasoning for the two different prices was not clear and that the discrepancy would have likely led to a consumer being unsure as to the specifics of the offer. Haven Leisure was also criticised for not holding adequate evidence to substantiate these claims.

Consumers would have expected to find a range of dates outside of school holidays at the advertised prices, not just one date. It was acknowledged that Penally Court was a small caravan park and that there were internal pricing errors but this did not absolve Haven Leisure.  

The ASA found that the limited availability meant that the ads were misleading and could not be substantiated.

Ruling and Action

The ads breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1 (Misleading advertising), 3.7 (Substantiation), 3.17 and 3.22 (Prices). It was ordered that the ads must not appear again in the form complained of.

Looking forward – Part 4 of the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024

This is the third ASA ruling in 2025 for misleading price claims, which shows that it continues to be a focus in the ASA’s crosshairs.

From 6 April 2025, businesses need to pay even stricter attention to issues like accurate pricing claims in their advertising, as the CMA will have new powers to investigate breaches of new consumer protection rules within the DMCC Act. Potential consequences may include fines of up to £300k or 10% of a business’ annual worldwide turnover, whichever is higher. In the future, this kind of ad risks a much worse outcome than an ASA adjudication and a requirement not to repeat the ad in the future.

Misleading pricing claims will be caught by various provisions within the DMCC Act, and in some circumstances will fall within the list of commercial practices which will always be deemed unfair.

Most businesses will have measures in place to ensure their advertising is not misleading and that pricing claims can be substantiated. We are assisting many of our clients in getting ready for the increased risks under the DMCC Act, so please get in touch if you would like advice, practical tips or training.