The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) has issued a new ruling that serves as an important reminder – particularly to those in regulated sectors - of the strict requirements governing comparative advertising and price related claims.
On 28 January, the ASA upheld a complaint brought by Releaf Dispensary Ltd against competitor Mamedica Ltd, a UK medical cannabis clinic. The complaint centred on misleading comparative pricing statements displayed on Mamedica’s website, including claims that its “year two” clinic fees were “£0 – lower than any other clinic in the UK.” The ASA also concluded the ad lacked clarity and did not provide adequate signposting to allow consumers to verify the competitor pricing data used.
What Did the ASA Find?
1. Misleading Price Comparisons
Mamedica presented a bar chart comparing its year two clinic fees with those of several competitors. However, the ASA determined that the comparison lacked the clarity needed for consumers to understand the basis of the claim. Different clinics operate under different pricing models, and the assumptions underpinning the comparison were not set out transparently.
2. Insufficient Signposting for Verification
Where advertisers make comparative claims, consumers must be able to independently verify the data. While Mamedica relied on publicly available competitor pricing, its website did not provide adequate signposting or links to allow consumers to check the figures themselves.
3. Lack of Clarity Around Eligibility
Mamedica’s £0 fee claim was based on its “Access” plan—available only to specific groups such as students, veterans and individuals on certain benefits. The ASA considered that presenting the £0 figure as a general year two fee risked misleading consumers who would not be eligible for that plan.
Why the Ruling Matters
This decision reinforces core ASA principles around transparency, substantiation and fairness in comparative advertising, particularly in regulated health sectors where consumers may be more vulnerable to misleading claims.
Clinics must:
- Ensure clarity in pricing claims: All comparative or value based claims must clearly explain what is included/excluded, especially when comparing across different charging structures.
- Provide robust signposting: Clinics should offer accessible links or statements that allow patients to verify competitor pricing or performance claims.
- Avoid oversimplification: Comparative charts or graphics need to reflect material nuances, such as eligibility restrictions, consultation lengths, differing clinical models or mandatory fees.
- Communicate eligibility rules plainly: Restrictions on discount plans or fee structures must be immediately clear, not buried in footnotes.
- Substantiate claims with proper evidence: The ASA expects pricing comparisons to be objective, consistent, and backed by directly verifiable evidence.
- Be cautious with “£0” or “free” claims: These are considered high risk by regulators. If used, clinics must clearly state conditions, limitations and applicable eligibility criteria.
- Review all marketing through a regulatory lens: The ruling signals the ASA’s continued scrutiny of medical cannabis advertising, especially where pricing or clinical benefit claims may influence vulnerable patients.
Looking Ahead
This ruling underscores the ASA’s continued close attention to medical cannabis advertising, particularly where pricing or clinical benefits may influence consumer choice. With the medical cannabis market expanding and an increasing number of clinics entering the sector, competitive pricing claims are becoming more common—and more closely scrutinised. This ruling is a timely reminder that transparency and accuracy are essential to building consumer trust and ensuring regulatory compliance.
If you would like advice on reviewing your marketing content, assessing competitor claims, or navigating the ASA and medicinal products advertising framework, our team is here to help.
Contributors
Senior Associate
Partner
