Ads Watchdog Bans EE’s Misleading No.1 UK 5G Network Claims

A series of complaints, most of which came from rivals Three UK and Vodafone, has prompted the UK Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) to investigate and ban several old adverts for EE’s mobile network over “misleading” promotions, which claimed that it was the “No.1” network for 5G.

The latest ruling is one of the longest and most complex that we’ve ever seen from the ASA, spanning a total of 18 pages and reflecting the outcome of their investigations into a series of old adverts on TV (featuring Kevin Bacon – naturally), Instagram, printed posters and social media Tweets (aka – X posts) – these were last seen all the way back in August 2020 (that’s not a typo, it really was 2020).

All the ads contained core claims about EE that were identical or similar to these – “No.1 network for 5G“, “UK’s No.1 5G network“, “number one network for 5G“, “No.1 for 5G“, “No.1 Network” or “No. 1 for Network Performance“. But those claims were disputed by Vodafone, Three UK and a member of the public:

The Complaints

1. Vodafone Ltd challenged whether the stylised images of medals, the claim “They just won number one network for 5G” and the references to “awards” in ads (a) to (e) were misleading, because they misrepresented the type and findings of the evidence on which the ‘No.1’ claims were based.

2. Vodafone and a member of the public challenged whether the claims that EE was the “No.1 network for 5G” in ads (a) and (b), “NO.1 FOR 5G” in ads (b), (c) and (e), and “the UK’s No.1 5G network” in ad (d) were misleading and could be substantiated, including because they did not make clear on which relevant measure(s) the claims were based and small print was either absent or insufficiently prominent.

3. The member of the public challenged whether the claim “EE HAS 3X MORE 5G COVERAGE IN BIRMINGHAM THAN VODAFONE, THREE AND O2” in ad (f) and the claim “EE HAS MORE 5G COVERAGE IN GLASGOW THAN VODAFONE, THREE AND O2” in ad (g) were misleading and could be substantiated.

4. Three UK challenged whether the claims “London! We’ve got you covered with 4x more 5G coverage than Three” and “EE has 4x more 5G coverage in London than Three” in ad (h), were misleading and could be substantiated.

5. All the complainants challenged whether the claims challenged at Points 2, 3 and 4 were verifiable, because the ads either did not include information sufficient for consumers to verify the claims, or adequately signpost consumers to where they could find information sufficient to verify the claims.

In the end, the ASA upheld part of the complaint against no 1 and 2 above, while no.3 was only upheld against ad (g), no.4 was NOT upheld and no.5 was fully upheld. In many cases, the ASA agreed that EE could have been considered the best network for 5G, but the operator often failed to verifiably establish that fact in the adverts themselves and so were found to be “misleading“.

The ASA found that, in several ads, EE “did not provide sufficient information to allow consumers to understand the comparison” or the “basis of the comparison” and were thus unable to “check the claims were accurate“. In other cases, they felt the ads were not correctly signposted or “that the amount of information provided about the testing methodology was not sufficient“.

ASA Ruling Ref: G20-1084379 EE Ltd

The ads must not appear again in the form complained of. We told EE Ltd to ensure that the basis of any comparative claims was presented clearly. We also told them to ensure that ads provided sufficient information to enable consumers to verify comparisons with identifiable competitors or adequately signposted consumers to such information.

A Spokesperson for EE told ISPreview.co.uk:

“We’re pleased the ASA has accepted EE’s historic 5G claims as accurate, including that the EE network had four times more coverage than Three in London. We will work hard to ensure the public can understand the data that supports our ongoing position as the UK’s best network.”

The fact that it’s been about three years since the adverts themselves were run does rather limit the impact of all this, although the ASA often likes to point out that the negative publicity that flows from their rulings does still hurt the subject of their investigations. But we rarely see much of a lasting impact from such things, and in this case, it really did take far too long.

Nevertheless, the outcome does not come as much of a surprise. Historically, many broadband ISPs and mobile operators have tried to claim they are the “best”, “top“, “no.1” or “most reliable” at something, only to neglect the need for an effective comparison. Overly broad claims about service performance or quality rarely hold up to scrutiny when put before the ASA and should thus generally be avoided, but nonetheless, we keep seeing them.