The airline challenged the customer claims website over the use of four tweets and a page on the brand’s webpage, which claimed customers could be eligible for €250 compensation if they were on certain flights.
Loganair questioned whether the ads were misleading because they implied compensation was guaranteed, but the flights in the ads were cancelled due to adverse weather conditions, which rendered them ineligible for compensation; implied third parties could make an initial claim for compensation; and did not make reference to the advertiser’s fees.
In response, Versus Law, trading as Flight Delay Claim, stated the primary factors for determining whether a claim qualified for further investigation were if a flight was delayed over three hours or cancelled.
If either was the case they would obtain information from the consumer, make a claim, allow the airline to present a defence and advise the consumer if the defence was valid.
The company said it had checked public information to determine whether the highlighted flights were cancelled or delayed by the requisite time period and said it would amend the text in future tweets to be more conditional about the amount that could be claimed.
Versus Law said while Loganair’s terms and conditions stated no third party could raise a complaint to them as a first step, all airlines had different conditions and Versus Law did not know the terms for all airlines.
The firm also said the tweets need not include their fees, because it was not material information. They explained prior to engagement all consumers would be advised of their fees.
FLIGHT DELAY CLAIM TWEETS BANNED
However, the ASA disagreed, stating that for three of the four tweets and the brand’s webpage, consumers were likely to interpret the ads to mean they would be guaranteed compensation for the specific flights if they applied.
It considered the ads, by using the phrases, “Claim Now” and “Claim €250 each”, in the absence of any other information that stated consumers may not receive compensation, implied that compensation was assured.
The advertising watchdog also found that all the tweets wrapped up in the complaint, alongside the webpage, misleadingly implied that third parties could make an initial claim for compensation, while three of the tweets breached the rules by omitting a mention of a fee if a claim for compensation was successful.
"The ads must not appear again in the form complained of," the ASA said. "We told Versus Law t/a Flight Delay Claim to ensure that future marketing communications did not state or imply that passengers of flights cancelled or delayed over three hours were guaranteed compensation and made clear that consumers could only apply for compensation for Loganair flights through Versus Law’s service if they had first complained to the airline."
