ASA upholds complaints against four misleading product review websites
Executive Summary
The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) has issued four rulings concerning product review or comparison websites, and/or advertisements for them. In each case, the ASA found that apparently impartial product reviews included, and surreptitiously promoted, the publishers’ own products.
Three of the rulings concerned paid search advertisements promoting websites that were presented as independent vacuum cleaner comparison platforms. The fourth ruling related to the Pet Food Expert website (petfoodexpert.com), a pet food scoring site.
In each ruling, the ASA found that the websites were presented as independent and impartial review platforms, despite having commercial links to some of the featured products. The ASA therefore concluded that the advertisements falsely implied that the businesses were acting for purposes outside the scope of their trade or business and failed to make their commercial intent clear.
For brands and retailers operating affiliate websites or comparison tools, these decisions underline the importance of clear disclosure. Generally, advertisers should take these rulings as evidence of increased regulatory scrutiny of online reviews, following the introduction of new rules on consumer reviews in the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024.
Background
Under the CAP Code, marketing communications must not falsely imply that the advertiser is acting for purposes outside its trade or business and must clearly disclose any commercial intent.
Issues
The ASA considered the following issues:
- Whether the advertisements falsely implied that the businesses were acting for purposes outside the scope of their trade or business.
- Whether the commercial intent behind the content was made sufficiently clear.
- In the Pet Food Expert ruling, the ASA also considered a preliminary issue as to whether the website content constituted a “marketing communication” for the purposes of the CAP Code.
Scope of the Code
In relation to the Pet Food Expert website, the ASA first considered whether the website fell within the scope of the CAP Code. In its response, Pets Corner (UK) Ltd, the owner of the Pet Food Expert site, argued that the website operated as a factual information site rather than as a marketing communication.
Pets Corner (UK) Ltd pointed to the “factual and objective” nature of the comparisons, which were based on criteria such as product packaging and the presence of allergens, as well as the transparency of its scoring system. It sought to distinguish the website from opinion‑based review platforms on this basis. Pets Corner (UK) Ltd argued that the website constituted a “natural listing on a search engine or price comparison site” and therefore fell outside the scope of the CAP Code.
The ASA disagreed. In assessing whether the website constituted a marketing communication, the ASA referred to CAP guidance stating that, where a comparison website is not independent, the website as a whole, including the results displayed, may fall within the scope of the CAP Code. The ASA noted that the Pet Food Expert website was owned by Pets Corner (UK) Ltd, which was itself owned by Pet Family Group Ltd, a company holding shareholdings in several pet food brands. Pets Corner (UK) Ltd was therefore closely connected to the products featured on the website, notwithstanding its presentation as a comparison tool.
The ASA also took into account the presence of “shop product” buttons linking directly to retailers. It considered that any listing which presented a product as ready for sale, described its characteristics, and included a “shop product” link directing consumers to a point of purchase could be regarded as a marketing communication. In light of these factors, the ASA concluded that the website fell squarely within the scope of the CAP Code.
Acting For Purposes Outside Its Business
Across all four sites, the advertisers used review‑style language and comparative claims such as “comprehensive cordless vacuum cleaner comparison”, “Top 5 Cordless Vacuums Review”, “Fully tested and reviewed for UK homes”, and “Fast, free and 100% unbiased”. The ASA concluded that the website names (consumertestreports.org, trustedbuyerguide.org and trustedguide.org) had been chosen to convey independence and trustworthiness, and the language used would lead consumers to believe that the sites were operated by independent review organisations offering unbiased and rigorous assessments free from commercial influence.
In reality, each advertiser had a direct commercial interest in at least one of the products featured. These interests arose through import and export arrangements, compensation or dropshipping agreements, or, in the case of Pet Food Expert, ownership by a retailer promoting its own and related products.
Further, some of the vacuum cleaner websites gave the impression that they conducted independent product testing. In fact, they either did not conduct product testing themselves or failed to provide sufficient evidence that any expert testing had been carried out.
By presenting themselves as impartial reviewers, the advertisements therefore falsely implied that the businesses were acting for purposes outside the scope of their trade or business.
Making Commercial Intent Clear
The second issue considered in each ruling was whether the commercial intent of the content had been made sufficiently clear.
In the case of consumertestreports.org, the advertiser acknowledged that its use of review‑style language could lead consumers to believe that the website was operated by an independent body, unless its commercial intent was clearly disclosed. In response, it introduced an ‘advertorial’ label and an advertiser disclosure link on the landing page. It also amended the wording to remove references to independent testing. However, the ASA held that these measures did not address the overall impression created by the advertisement itself, which continued to present the website as an independent review platform. The ruling was therefore upheld.
The owner of trustedguide.org similarly presented its website as an independent comparison platform, featuring reviews of five vacuum cleaners, despite there being no evidence of expert‑led or independent testing. In practice, the landing page directed consumers towards a single product, which was awarded a very high rating and appeared to be dropshipped. By presenting itself as an impartial review site while in reality funnelling consumers towards a specific commercial product, the website failed to make its commercial intent sufficiently clear.
Although the trustedbuyerguide.org website included an “About Us” page stating that it may have partnerships with some of the companies linked to the listed products and that compensation could influence product presentation, the ASA considered this disclosure inadequate when viewed in the context of the site as a whole. The overall review‑style design, combined with the removal of identifiable brand names from four of the vacuum cleaners it claimed to review, served to steer consumers towards the purchase of a fifth, imported generic vacuum product. The ASA therefore concluded that, despite the disclaimer, the website had not sufficiently disclosed its commercial intent.
The Pet Food Expert website (petfoodexpert.com) similarly included an “About” page disclosing its ownership by Pets Corner (UK) Ltd. However, the ASA noted that the website could be navigated and used without accessing that section. As a result, the disclosure was insufficient to counter the overall impression created by the advertisements and surrounding content that the website operated independently.
As a result of insufficient disclosure of their commercial intent, the advertisers were in breach of CAP Code rule 2.3 on the recognition of marketing communications.
Comment
These four rulings demonstrate that the ASA is taking an active approach to disguised advertising in the review and comparison space.
The Pets Corner and trustedbuyerguide.org rulings are particularly significant for larger businesses. They show that even well-designed comparison tool websites can breach the CAP Code where the site owner has a commercial interest in the products being compared and that connection is not made sufficiently clear. In particular, burying disclosures of commercial relationships in an FAQ or “About” page is unlikely to be sufficient.
Businesses operating affiliate marketing sites or comparison tools should consider the following practical steps:
- Review the use of terms such as “unbiased”, “independent”, and “expert tested”.
These claims are likely to attract ASA scrutiny where the site operator has any financial interest in the products featured.
- Make commercial intent clear in the advertisement itself.
Do not rely on landing page disclaimers or “About” pages to do the work. Where an advertisement promotes a comparison or review site, it should be apparent from the ad copy that the site has a commercial connection.
Article co-authored by Arianne Puttock, TMIC Trainee Solicitor, CMS UK.
