Advertisment
The advertisement was an Uber Eats leaflet which stated:
“Try Uber Eats and get 80% off*
New customers can enjoy 80%* off their first 3 orders.”
The asterisk linked to text at the bottom of the leaflet included the following
‘*80% off (save up to €15), when you spend €15 or more on menu items (excluding the value of promotional items).’
Complaint
The complainant considered the advertising was misleading as they believed that the terms of the offer contradicted the headline offer given it was only possible to save up to €15.
Response
The advertisers stated that the claim in the headline was correct. The headline was asterisked, and the terms and conditions were placed on the front of the brochure. The advertisers considered that an asterisk would be universally recognised by the consumer that the offer was qualified by terms and conditions. The advertisers also noted that it was standard practice in the food delivery sector to cap savings on discounts, particularly when the discount was a high percentage. The advertisers considered that the €15 limit did not undermine or conflict with the 80% discount; it only restricted the maximum value of the offer. Lastly, the advertisers stated that the terms and conditions were clearly presented on the brochure as they were legible and placed directly underneath the main body of the advertisement.
Conclusion
Complaint Upheld
The Complaints Council considered the detail of the complaint and the advertisers’ response.
The Council noted the requirements of the Code that a marketing communication should not mislead, or be likely to mislead, by inaccuracy, ambiguity, exaggeration, omission or otherwise (S. 4.1) and that disclaimers, asterisked, footnoted or “small print” information should not contradict more prominent aspects of the message. Such information should be of sufficient size and/or prominence and be located and presented in such a manner as to be clearly and easily legible and/or audible; where appropriate such information should be linked to the relevant part of the main copy (S 4.6).
the Council considered that the offer in this case was an ‘up to’ offer. They acknowledged that the terms and conditions of the advertisement were proximate to the headline offer, however, given the terms of the offer and that the maximum discount available for each order was €15, the Council considered the claim “80% off” was contracted by the terms. In the circumstances, the Council considered the advertising was in breach of Sections 4.1, 4.6 and 5.5 of the Code.
Action Required
The advertisement must not reappear in its current form.
