ASA Ruling:

We noted the headline claim advised BT broadband and phone customers to cut their broadband and "phone bills" by around half with Sky. We also noted the table of comparison stated that the savings claim was based on monthly subscription costs only and did not accommodate the cost of calls customers made outside of those included in their call plan. We acknowledged Skys argument that customers were not obliged to make calls outside of their inclusive calls.

We considered that readers would interpret the term "phone bill" in the context of the headline claim to mean that they would be able to save 50% on the cost of their overall phone bill, which could include both inclusive and exclusive calls, if they switched from BT or Virgin Media to Sky. We understood that the comparison was based on a contrast between specific monthly subscription charges only and did not incorporate the relative costs of call tariffs for actual customers using those call plans.

Although the table explained that the comparison was made between monthly subscription charges only, we considered that that information contradicted, rather than clarified, the heading and the reference to "phone bills" was therefore rendered ambiguous. We concluded that the ad was likely to mislead in this regard.

On this point, the ad breached CAP Code clauses 3.1 (Substantiation), 7.1 (Truthfulness) and 18.1 (Comparisons with identified competitors and/or their products).