Note: This advice is given by the CAP Executive about non-broadcast advertising. It does not constitute legal advice. It does not bind CAP, CAP advisory panels or the Advertising Standards Authority.
Also known as: customer reviews, testimonials, official endorsements, memberships
Marketers must hold documentary evidence to show that a testimonial or endorsement used in a marketing communication is genuine, unless it is obviously fictitious, and must also hold contact details for the person (or organisation) that gives it (rule 3.45). Showing that a testimonial is genuine has two elements; showing that the quote is from a real person and that it reflects what they said.
Claims within a testimonial must not mislead or be likely to mislead the consumer (rule 3.47). For guidance on making claims in testimonials please see “Claims in testimonials and endorsements”.
Do not omit commercial interests
Seek permission to use the testimonial
Use testimonials that are relevant to the product
Beware of restricted product categories
Do not incentivise positive reviews
Do not imply official endorsement or membership
Do not pose as a consumer
Marketing communications must not falsely claim or imply that the marketer is acting as a consumer or for purposes outside its trade, business, craft or profession (rule 2.3). It is a breach of the Code for a marketer to write reviews of their own products whilst posing as a genuine consumer.
See ‘Recognising marketing communications: Overview” for further details.
Do not omit commercial interests
Ads must not misleadingly omit material information regarding commercial relationships. In 2024, the ASA considered ads which featured what many consumers would, in the ASA’s view, likely interpret to be testimonials. These ads were deemed to be misleading, because the ads did not disclose the commercial interests of the featured individual, a fact which was deemed to be material to a consumer’s understanding of the ads.
In the first, Steven Bartlett, an investor in Zoe, was pictured by a quote which encouraged consumers to try a particular Zoe product. The text below it attributed the quote to him. The ASA found the style of the ad was reminiscent of how a customer might review a product, and of how an independent person might be presented. That Bartlett was an investor in Zoe was deemed to be material information (ZOE Ltd, 14 August 2024).
The other ruling concerned ads for Huel, of which Bartlett was a director. The ads attributed the claim ‘This is Huel’s best product’ to Bartlett. Another included a clip of him saying similar. It was determined that consumers were unlikely to understand Bartlett’s financial interest in Huel from the ads. His directorship was deemed to be material information (Huel Ltd, 14 August 2024).
For more information on the need to include material information, see Misleading advertising.
Seek permission to use the testimonial
Marketing communications must not feature a testimonial without permission (rule 3.48). When seeking permission to use a testimonial, marketers should be aware of their obligations under Section 10: Database practice.
The ASA has upheld complaints when marketers have not been able to prove they have held the relevant permission (see Easylife Group, Positive Health, 23 December 2020 and Conservatory Outlet Ltd, 20 March 2013) and when a testimonial was wrongly attributed to a complainant whose image was used without consent (Phyto Nature Source, 25 October 2006).
Rule 3.48 allows for some exceptions to the requirement to hold permission when taking accurate quotes from a published source. However, marketers quoting from a published source still need evidence to show that the statements are genuine and accurate (eSmart Media Ltd, 22 January 2014). The ASA ruled that a list of quotes with references to the publications in which they appeared was not sufficient to show that the quotations were from those publications (www.comedyclubbookings.com, 27 March 2013).
Hold documentary evidence
Marketers must hold documentary evidence that a testimonial or endorsement used in a marketing communication is genuine and hold contact details for the person who, or organisation that, gives it.
In 2024, the ASA ruled against three paid-for Facebook ads as no evidence was provided to the ASA to show the testimonials were genuine, and no contact details were provided (Hike Future Ltd t/a Hike Footwear, 28 August 2024). See also Direct Response Marketing Group Ltd t/a Wellform, 20 September 2023 and YorkTest Laboratories Ltd, 20 June 2012.
In 2023, Branshaws provided the ASA with written testimonies (one undated and three from 2022), complete with signatures and contact details, which reflected the testimonies in the ad. On that basis, the ASA deemed the reviews to have been genuine. As part of this ruling, the ASA also made clear that the use of stock images by advertisers was not unreasonable provided the testimony was genuine (Prime Star Shop Ltd t/a Branshaws, 16 August 2023).
Signed and dated proof is not the only form of evidence that the ASA will likely consider acceptable. For example, where an advertiser was able to provide copies of the e-mails which contained testimonials, the addresses and the ordering history of the customers, the ASA considered sufficient evidence had been provided to demonstrate that the testimonials were genuine (Monark Global Ltd, 11 December 2013). E-mail testimonials from unverifiable addresses (such as hotmail) would not be acceptable by themselves although the ASA has accepted testimonials in the form of a provable company e-mail address (de Verde Ltd, 28 August 2013).
A combination of email addresses, product information and order numbers, and data from the online payment system which showed product and order information that corresponded with the customer reviews was considered sufficient to demonstrate that customer reviews were genuine (Swann Communications (Europe) Ltd, 29 April 2020).
Use testimonials that are relevant to the product
Testimonials must relate to the product advertised (rule 3.46). Testimonials should not be taken out of context or edited in a way which is misleading. In 2024, the ASA upheld complaints against a food delivery service’s advertising after they cut footage from a rival’s Dragon’s Den appearance to make it appear as if the advertiser had appeared on the programme, and received a positive endorsement from the ‘Dragons’ (Simmer Ltd, 17 July 2024). See also Easylife Group, Positive Health, 23 December 2020.
An ad which used the review of one track on an album in an ad for the whole album without attributing the review to the previously released single was found to be misleading (Warner Music UK Ltd t/a Atlantic Records, 23 November 2011). So too was a quote which included the claim “says the Daily Star”, as it was decided the average consumer would expect the full quote to have appeared in a published Daily Star review, when this was not the case (Twentieth Century Fox Film Company Ltd, 05 December 2012).
Marketers should avoid altering testimonials submitted by customers so that they relate to a more recent incarnation of the company (YorHost, 13 June 2012). See Types of claims: “Established since…” for information on how to reference earlier iterations of a business.
Similarly, if a business uses a testimonial for an employee whilst they were employed by a past employer, this may be considered problematic. This is particularly the case if the positive attributes referenced were likely be affected, at least to some degree, by the business in which they working (Alpinum Ltd, 12 September 2018).
Beware of restricted product categories
Marketers should be aware that in some circumstances the use of testimonials and endorsements is excluded altogether. Namely, marketers may not use health professionals or celebrities to endorse medicines (rule 12.18) and may not make health claims that refer to the recommendation of an individual health professional (rule 15.6.3).
For more information see ‘Health: Celebrities and health professionals’.
Do not incentivise positive reviews
While providing incentives to encourage people to leave genuine, unbiased reviews and testimonials could potentially be considered acceptable, directly and explicitly incentivising consumers to leave positive reviews or testimonials is likely to be considered problematic.
The ASA ruled against the use of testimonials in an ad where the advertiser offered to refund a sum for leaving a “nice review”. In the absence of any indication on the website that consumers were remunerated for leaving positive reviews, the ASA ruled that the use of the testimonials gave consumers a skewed picture of consumer’s attitudes to the advertiser’s services i.e. believing them to be more positive than they were (Official iPhone Unlock Ltd, 19 September 2018).
In 2018, a promoter offered consumers the opportunity to “DOUBLE YOUR ENTRY” if they left a 5-star review on Facebook. The ASA ruled the favourable reviews were likely to mislead prospective customers (Vindicta Digital, 26 September 2018).
Do not imply official endorsement or membership
Ads must not show a trust mark, quality mark or equivalent without the necessary authorisation. In 2024, a rehab clinic referral service’s use of the Care Quality Commission’s (CQC) trust mark was deemed to be misleading, as the advertiser was not CQC registered (Action Rehab, 18 December 2024). See also Which Rehab Ltd, 18 December 2024 and Titan Insulation Ltd, 8 January 2020.
Marketers must not claim that the marketer (or any other entity referred to), the ad or the advertised product has been approved, endorsed, or authorised by any public or other body if it has not, or if it has not complied with the relevant terms of the approval, endorsement or authorisation (rule 3.50).
In 2024, the ASA ruled against numerous ads which misleadingly implied that the advertiser was associated with, or endorsed by, the UK Government. Broadly speaking, this was due to the use of UK Government logos / crown logos, and the term “GOV.UK” (ECO4U Ltd, 11 December 2024, Ignite Sustainable Energy Ltd t/a ignites.co.uk, 11 December 2024, Impact Energy Ltd, 11 December 2024, Lead Pronto Ltd t/a LeadPronto, 11 December 2024). Similar complaints have been upheld against ads which implied the advertiser had endorsement and/or approval from the BBC (Borthwick Group (Energy) Ltd, 15 November 2023), the Scottish Government (Alchemy Bros Ltd t/a Energy Grant Access, 11 December 2024), and the Food Standards Agency (Femgroup Ltd t/a Feminapause, 11 September 2024).
Advertisers have also breached rule 3.50 by misleadingly implying they were regulated by the FCA (CurrencyWave Ltd t/a CurrencyWave, 06 November 2024), in partnership with the RAF (The BLAC Awards (UK) C.I.C t/a The Blac Awards, 02 October 2024), and members of numerous membership groups for surgeons (The Belvedere Clinic Ltd, 05 July 2023).
Similarly, ads must not falsely claim that the marketer, or any other entity referred to in the ad, is a signatory to a code of conduct. Advertisers must also not claim that a code of conduct has an endorsement from a public or other body (rule 3.51).
For example, a website for a sleep consultancy company featured the logo of the Federation of Antenatal Educators (FEDANT), a body which administers the national register and professional standards of antenatal educators, breastfeeding counsellors and doulas in the UK. The ASA ruled that the use of this logo breached rule 3.51 (and rule 3.50), as no evidence was provided to show that the advertiser was registered with FEDANT (Go Night Night, 30 October 2024). See also Serenity Addiction Centres, 18 December 2024 and The Lead Guys Ltd, 30 October 2019.
See also ‘Flags and emblems’ and “Official Endorsements” for more information.