ASA Bans Six More Vodafone UK Ads Over Misleading “Nation’s Network” Claim

Some readers might recall that the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) banned an advert on mobile and broadband ISP Vodafone’s website in April 2025 after EE complained about the operator describing itself as “The Nation’s Network” (here), which was ultimately deemed to be a misleading claim. The ASA has now banned another six ads for doing the same sort of thing.

The six adverts reflected a mix of TV and YouTube promotions, as well as posters, Meta website banners and other ads seen between February 2025 and July 2025. All made general references to Vodafone being “The Nation’s Network“, albeit without fully explaining what that really meant, and often accompanying it with small text like: “Supporting the nation since 1984“.

As before, EE (BT), who believed the claim “The Nation’s Network” was an implied comparative superiority claim, challenged whether the ads were misleading due to the lack of clear substantiation. But Vodafone disagreed and instead said that the term merely reflected a “corporate positioning statement or strap line that was not capable of objective substantiation“.

Vodafone added that it was intended as a “brand platform that reflected Vodafone’s legacy, cultural sponsorships and emphasised their role and reach” and they pointed to how the ASA’s prior ruling, in April 2025, had deemed one of their TV ads (a Christmas 2024 ad), which used the same claim, to be acceptable. The provider said they “understood that the April 2025 Ruling permitted the use of “The Nation’s Network” when it was clearly conceptualised as a heritage-based message“.

The ASA disagreed and found that the ads did not include a clear contextual basis for the claim.

ASA Ruling Ref: A25-1300811 Vodafone Ltd

In the absence of a clear explanation for the basis of the claim in the ads, we considered that there were several possible consumer interpretations for it. For example, we considered that some consumers might understand that Vodafone were expressing their subjective view that they were “the Nation’s Network” because they were a UK-based network, which provided services to the UK since 1984. However, we considered at least a significant minority of consumers were likely to interpret the claim as being an objective comparative claim against the UK’s other network providers. For example, we noted the ads did not state Vodafone was “one of the nation’s networks”, or “a network serving the nation”, which would be unlikely to be considered as comparative, depending on the context in which they appeared.

One such interpretation, that we considered that a significant minority of consumers were likely to hold, was that Vodafone was more popular than, or had more customers than, other networks that also provided telecoms services to UK consumers. We considered that the scenarios presented in ads (a) and (b), of groups of people enjoying leisure activities, added to that impression.

We also considered that some consumers were likely to view the claim, particularly in the context of the ads which referred to “99% population coverage”, “the nation’s most valuable UK telecoms provider” and “London’s Best Network”, to mean that Vodafone was the nation’s network because it was more reliable or offered better connectivity or coverage than other network providers.

The CAP and BCAP Codes required that comparisons with identifiable competitors must objectively compare one or more material, relevant, verifiable and representative features of those products. As such, we expected the ad to objectively compare one or more verifiable feature. Because we considered that was likely to be understood by consumers in a range of ways (including as a comparison against all other UK networks, for example that Vodafone was the most popular network in the UK or had the most customers), we considered the ads failed to objectively compare one or more material, relevant, verifiable and representative feature and concluded that the claim “The Nation’s Network”, as it appeared in the ads, breached the Code.

Ad (a) breached BCAP Code rule 3.36 (Comparisons with identifiable competitors).

Ads (b), (c), (d) and (f) breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rule 3.34 (Comparisons with identifiable competitors).

Ad (e) breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rule 3.35 (Comparisons with identifiable competitors) [rule as worded pre-7 April 2025].

As before, the ASA banned the adverts in their current form and warned Vodafone to ensure that, in future, they “objectively compared one or more material, relevant, verifiable and representative feature[s] if making an implied comparative claim in future“. Judgements like this show that there can be a very fine line between what is and is not deemed acceptable under the rules.

As we always say, it’s usually best for providers to avoid making any generalised claims like this as they’re often hard or even impossible to truly substantiate in such a diverse, complex and competitive market.

On the flip side, the ASA’s ruling arrives far too late to really have much impact, since the related ad campaigns have long since run their course. Vodafone is now more focused on pushing the benefits of their merger with Three UK.