In this consultation, BCAP proposes to remove one and amend another rule on pricing. In both cases, BCAP wishes to ensure that the BCAP Code is consistent with relevant law.
BCAP proposes to remove a rule on comparative pricing claims requiring them to be based on identical or substantially equivalent products. This would allow comparisons between products which meet the same need or intended purpose but which may not be “identical”. An example of this would be a supermarket ad that compared own-brand and premium-brand products. The rule BCAP proposes to remove currently prevents a comparison between an own-brand tin of beans and premium-brand tins of beans. BCAP understands the legal framework is designed to permit objective comparisons and proposes to make the Code more flexible to allow this.
BCAP also proposes to amend its rule on VAT-exclusive pricing. BCAP has considered government guidance that suggests its rule may be too strict. The rule only allows VAT-exclusive prices to appear in ads seen by an audience of business consumers. BCAP considers those claims may safely appear in ads seen or heard by a broader audience in certain circumstances. If it is clear from the ad that the price claim is addressed at businesses, the ad should not mislead ordinary consumers. BCAP proposes to change the rule to allow for this.
After considering consultation responses, BCAP has decided to remove most of the rule on comparative pricing claims, but retain the first part. The rule now states that the basis of the comparison must be made clear. So, if an ad compares own-brand and premium brand tins of beans, that needs to be stated. BCAP has revised another rule to make clear that if an ad compares prices, it must do so objectively.
BCAP also decided to change its rule on VAT-exclusive pricing. It made an additional change to ensure that ads make clear what the VAT rate is on a given product.
CAP considered the outcome of both BCAP decisions and decided to make the same changes to the CAP Code.