0370 270 6000

7 is more than 3 but less than acceptable

13 August 2010

In the motor industry it is important to differentiate your product, and currently concerns about quality are running high. So Kia’s ‘7 year warranty’ advertising campaign is timely – however, the ASA have this week ruled that it should not be repeated as it is misleading.

Kia had failed to sufficiently highlight that the warranty was subject to a 100,000 mile limit, and that not all items would be covered for the full length of the warranty – even though the 100,000 mile limit was referred to in the final frames of the ad, and was considerably in excess of the UK’s average annual mileage (around 10,000 miles).

Although the ruling is not fatal for Kia’s ‘7 year warranty’ strapline, Kia will have to alter its adverts. Advertisers of course want to have a clear message, but this ruling shows how difficult this can be if there are significant qualifications to an offer, which need bringing to the consumer’s attention. If an offer is qualified – that information must be as clear as the strapline itself.

Related opinions

IR35 rules to be scrapped from April 2023

The Chancellor’s recent mini-budget provided a significant announcement for business as it was confirmed that the off-payroll working rules (known as “IR35”) put in place for public and private sector businesses from 2017 and 2021 will be scrapped from April 2023.

View blog

80% hours for 100% pay? That’ll do nicely

As has been widely reported this week, some 3,000 UK workers are taking part in a six month trial to assess the viability of a four-day working week without any reduction in their normal pay.

View blog

Right to Work Checks: Changes from 6 April 2022

From 6 April 2022, right to work checks on all migrant or settled prospective employees must be online and checks on British or Irish nationals will be manual (free) or digital (charged for).

View blog

Are whistleblowers entitled to keep their employer’s confidential documents?

In Nissan v Passi, the High Court recently considered the issue of an employee retaining confidential documents belonging to his former employer in the context of the employer’s application for an injunction seeking the return of such documents from the employee.

View blog

Mailing list sign up

Select which mailings you would like to receive from us.

Sign up