Facebook: Adverts were misleading
The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) has upheld complaints against three law firms over misleading websites and online advertising for group actions.
The regulator said the rulings against the Johnson Law Group (JLG), KP Law and Scottish firm Jones Whyte formed part of “a wider piece of work on ads relating to group action litigation, identified for investigation following complaints received and intelligence gathered by the ASA”.
Among the issues were consumer understanding of the term ‘no win, no fee’, whose use by law firms the Solicitors Regulation Authority said last week it was considering banning [1].
The complaints against JLG and Jones Whyte were made by business lobby group Fair Civil Justice, which campaigns to curtail class actions; the other investigation was instigated by the ASA of its own volition.
JLG’s advert was for diesel emissions claims, telling drivers that they may be owed up to £10,000.
Website visitors who had an eligible car were asked to fill in when they first registered the vehicle and their date of birth, and to “e-sign below to generate your personalised Client Care Pack”.
Below the ‘e-sign’ box, bold but small text said: “Signed with an intention to enter into a legally binding contract.”
The ASA said consumers would not have realised that the act of e-signing “immediately entered them into a contractual commitment” – even assuming they had seen the wording. They would not expect either that a document described as a ‘client care pack’ was a contract.
It found as well that the answers to questions about how much JLG charged and whether consumers would owe money if the claim was lost – which were in a drop-down menu lower on the webpage – were “not sufficiently prominent to ensure that consumers had that information before making a decision”.
This meant they “omitted material information” in breach of the UK Code of Non-broadcast Advertising and Direct & Promotional Marketing.
JLG also failed to substantiate the claim that drivers could receive up to £10,000 in compensation and so this was misleading too.
“The confidential evidence provided by Johnson Law Group referred to an average purchase price of a specific car brand and suggested it was likely that a significant proportion of claimants against that brand would be awarded £10,000 or at least several thousands of pounds at least.
“However, the claims in the ads would be understood as relating to all brands of diesel vehicle and the evidence provided was therefore not adequate.
“Additionally, we noted that the ads were seen in June 2024, which was after the deadline set by the High Court for new claimants against the specific car brand referenced in the evidence. Consumers who responded to the ads would therefore not have been able to make a claim against the brand to which Johnson Law Group’s evidence related.”
Further, even if claimants were awarded £10,000, they would not receive that amount give that JLG would deduct a fee of “up to 50%”, as well as the cost of after-the-event insurance.
The ASA said the adverts must not appear again in the form complained of. Future adverts must be clear about consumers signing a legally binding contract and provide “material” information prominently and in “a clear and timely manner”, when making claims such as ‘no win, no fee’ or ‘no upfront cost’.
“Material information included information about how fees and charges were calculated in a successful claim, and that clients may be liable for costs in some circumstances.
“We also told Johnson Law Group not to state specific compensation amounts their clients may be awarded unless they held adequate substantiation, and made clear that the amount was prior to the deduction of fees and costs, and what those fees and costs were.”
The KP Law complaint concerned its Arnold Clark data breach claim, with the adverts published by lead generation website Join The Claim, which connects consumers with group actions.
The ASA considered that “most consumers would be unlikely to be aware that some law firms used lead generation firms” and that it was not sufficiently clear that Join The Claim was not a law firm, even though a footer on each page said this.
In any case, statements such as ‘Your matchmaker for justice, if eligible we’ll pair you with a regulated law firm running a suitable claim’ suggested that Join The Claim worked with a range of law firms in relation to Arnold Clark claims, and would find the most suitable for each claimant, rather than only working with KP Law.
The adverts gave the impression that Join The Claim was litigating the group action, rather than just passing on leads to KP Law, in breach of the code, the regulator concluded.
As with JLG, the ASA also found the adverts did not present “material information” about costs early enough in the process and issued directions both to Join The Claim and KP Law about future adverts.
The Jones Whyte complaint was also about the Arnold Clark data breach claim and the ASA said neither its Facebook advert nor the landing page to which it linked provided material information about the fee and other costs “in a clear and timely manner”.
It advised that in future “for paid-for social media ads that included claims such as or ‘no win, no fee’ or ‘no upfront costs’, material information should (depending on the circumstances) appear either in those ads, or at least be presented clearly on a landing page”.
Seema Kennedy, executive director of Fair Civil Justice, commented: “This ruling exposes a wider problem: the rise of a predatory claims culture in the UK. Too often, it serves the interests of lawyers and funders rather than consumers.
“Adverts promising ‘easy money’ and ‘no risk’ are misleading. In reality, litigation is costly and risky: those who withdraw from claims can face hefty charges, and even successful claimants may see large deductions from their compensation.”