ASA Adjudication on The Advertising Protection Agency
The Advertising Protection Agency
27 Old Gloucester Street
London
WC1N 3AX
Date:
25 January 2012
Media:
Internet (on own site)
Sector:
Business
Number of complaints:
4
Complaint Ref:
A11-172523
Ad
Claims on the website, www.advertisingprotectionagency.org, visited in September 2011, featured the company logo, an encircled tick and the statement "Registered Data Controller No. Z1214518". Several tabs providing further information were included on the left side of the home page. Text on the home page stated "TAPA provides assistance with Nuisance Calls • Junk Faxes ... The Privacy and Electronic Communications (EC Directive) Regulations 2003 is a UK law that states all organisations including charities, voluntary organisations and political parties do not make sales or marketing calls to telephone numbers unless they have the owner's consent to do so". Further information was provided about the regulation. Text continued "The Advertising Protection Agency (TAPA) stops unsolicited advertising and marketing sales approaches being made to consumers and businesses by way of telephone, fax and email that do not wish to receive these types of unsolicited marketing approaches. Whether individuals wish to prevent any single one or all of these types of unsolicited marketing approaches being made to them, TAPA works to permanently prevent any further unsolicited marketing approaches being made to them in the future ...". A click through link labelled "STOP NUISANCE CALLS" WAS PROVIDED. Text at the foot of the page stated "Please browse the links below for terms and conditions".
The logo of the Telephone Preference Service appeared alongside the text "TAPA is an Associate Licensee of the Telephone Preference Service (TPS) and has demonstrated its commitment to raising and maintaining the standards and effectiveness of the direct marketing industry".
A click through link "Stop Nuisance Calls" led to a separate landing page, headed "Stop Nuisance Sales Calls, Market Research, Silent and Recorded Message Calls To Your Phone Number" and included information about that service. At the bottom of the page, at the end of the final paragraph, text stated "For further details, please see our Terms of Service regarding registration for only £2.25 per month for registering up to five numbers." Below that text, a click through link stated "Register Now".
On the Terms of Service webpage, under the heading "STOP NUISANCE CALLS", text stated "The Client shall pay an annual administration fee to the Service Provider of £26.95 inc VAT initially on the Agreement Date by way of credit / debit card payment to subsidise all associated time, stationary and utility costs, postage and packaging of documentation and any other costs that may be incurred by the Service Provider in processing a new Client instruction for the registration of up to five (5) telephone numbers. This fee is based on a monthly subsidy of £2.25 inc VAT per calendar month ... A further annual administration fee of £9.95 inc VAT (0.83p inc VAT per calendar month) will be due payable initially on the Agreement Date to register any additional telephone numbers above five numbers (6+)."
On the "Cancellation of Service" webpage, under the heading "Nuisance Calls & Junk Faxes", text stated "If you have instructed TAPA to stop miscellaneous sales telephone calls or junk faxes being made to your telephone number(s), you can cancel these services within 7 days of the date you instructed TAPA ..."
Issue
The ASA received four complaints:
1. three complainants challenged whether the website implied that The Advertising Protection Agency (TAPA) had official status; and
2. three complainants, who had registered with TAPA through their website to prevent nuisance calls, challenged whether it was sufficiently clear that TAPA charged for its services.
CAP Code (Edition 12)
Response
1. The Advertising Protection Agency (TAPA) said that they had previously taken advice from the ASA on the content of their website and understood that it was in line with the advertising Code.
They said they had been trading with businesses since 2007 and had begun trading with consumers in May 2011. They said they were a service provider and did not retail physical goods and therefore felt the style and feel of the website needed to be one that would reflect their market and required a corporate feel that demonstrated professionalism, good academic standard and a less exciting layout than an online retail website. They questioned whether the complainant had confused 'corporate' with official.
They said they used a tick in their logo, because they viewed it as a positive symbol denoting confidence, good service, help and assistance as a service provider and a consumer champion that helped businesses that were being targeted by unlawful telemarketing firms. They said they had liaised closely with a large number of Trading Standards offices since 2007 as well as two major newspapers, the Police and Companies Investigation Branch, and the issue had not been not been previously raised by those governing authorities.
They said that the TPS logo appeared because TPS offered a service to businesses, screening all of their tele-data through their official checking service. They said they joined the scheme to show that they traded lawfully and screened all of their data through the TPS and would only ever contact a business that was not registered on to the TPS central opt out register. They said the scheme also encouraged accredited members to display the logo.
They commented on the display of their registered data controller number and said businesses that held individual personal data were legally obliged to register their business with the Information Commissioner's Office (ICO) and received a 'Registered Data Controller Number' under the Data Protection Act 1998. They explained that they had to display that number on their website so that the general public could verify with the ICO that TAPA were lawfully controlling personal data properly in accordance with legislation. They believed consumers would understand the relevance of the number.
They said they had a '100% Satisfaction Guaranteed' logo on every webpage and therefore felt the website would not be seen on an official or government website and that showed consumers that they were a business.
They suggested that the 'Cancellation of Service' link published on each webpage and their testimonial links also suggested they were a business. They said they also had a dedicated page of links which steered visitors to the TAPA website to government regulators where they could make complaints and get advice and that that was another indicator that they were a business. They said their FAQ link also explained their legal status.
They said their website also included the relevant law relating to unsolicited sales calls which made consumers aware of their legal entitlements.
2. They believed that the complainants had not carried out the necessary checks regarding their fees, for example, by not sufficiently studying the website or by contacting TAPA by one of the many means available on their website, and that the "Stop Nuisance Calls" webpage included a specific price, setting out the cost of the service. They said they had added their VAT Registration Number to every webpage, which they felt, in addition, showed that they were not a free service. They said the PayPal logo appeared on every webpage, which they felt was a clear indicator that they charged for their services, because a PayPal logo would be understood by consumers to mean that a website charged for its services or goods and did not offer free services. They said they also had a 'Terms of Service' link on every webpage, duplicated in two places, which featured a breakdown of all of the fees they charged. They said the website also contained a 'Cancellation of Service' link and a 'Disclaimer' link on each page and the content stated that they were a profit-making business. They also said the website did not state that they were a free service and they did not see why consumers should therefore assume that they were free. They said they also provided a helpline number on each webpage that could be contacted for clarification of their services and a thorough FAQ that answered questions about the charges for their service.
They said the cost of the service was also made very clear in the early stages of the contract and that after an order was placed online they posted an introduction pack to the customer that included a bill, a copy of their terms and conditions and a copy of the contract into which they had entered. They said they also provided their clients with a seven-day cooling off period as a gesture of goodwill, which they would not do if they were a company that intended to deceive consumers.
Assessment
1. Upheld
The ASA acknowledged that the website did not expressly claim to be an official government authority, agency, channel or other official body and also noted TAPA's view that the website contained information that would not typically be included in an official or governmental website, such as their VAT Registration Number, the PayPal logo, the claims "100% Satisfaction Guaranteed" and "Cancellation of Service" and that they also charged for the service.
However, we noted that the website offered to stop unsolicited calls and communications and considered that that was a service which consumers might expect to be offered by an official source, such as a government agency or department. We noted that the website contained a great deal of practical consumer information, which consumers might not typically expect to be included in a website for a commercial business. We also noted that the information was provided by an organisation called The Advertising Protection Agency, which we considered some consumers would infer was an official body.
Although we noted that some aspects of the website indicated that TAPA were not an official body, we considered that, in light of the name, service and content, the overall appearance of the site could lead users to infer it was an official government service and therefore concluded the ad was misleading.
On that point, the claims breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1, 3.3 (Misleading advertising) and 3.41 (Imitation and denigration).
2. Upheld
We noted that some consumers had not realised from the website that there was a charge for TAPA's service and had signed up for the service on the understanding that it was free. We noted that TAPA had included the pricing information on the website, although it was not included on the main home page, but was found on a separate page, accessed via the link "Stop Nuisance Calls". We noted that the relevant pricing information appeared at the bottom of that second page above the link "Register Now" and stated "£2.25 per month for registering up to five numbers". We understood that consumers wishing to use the "Stop Nuisance Calls" service would have to click on the "Stop Nuisance Calls" and "Register Now" links, and would therefore go via the page which included the charging information and click the link just below the relevant text. We also acknowledged that the Terms of Service page included additional information about the cost of each available service to the user and that the website also included a tab with details of TAPA's cancellation policy, which the advertisers' felt further indicated that there was a charge.
However, we also noted that the charging information appeared at the bottom of a large block of text and that the website in general contained a great deal of information and several pages of lengthy and detailed text. We considered that, in light of that format, some consumers might miss information because details might be lost in the lengthy content included in the website's several pages.
Because the website contained a great deal of text over several web pages and because the significant pricing information was included in a large block of text, we considered that it might not be clear to some consumers there was a charge for TAPA's services. We therefore concluded that the website did not make sufficiently clear that TAPA charged for its services and was misleading on that basis.
On that point, the claims breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1, 3.3 (Misleading advertising) 3.9 and 3.10 (Qualification).
Action
The claims must not appear again in their current form.