What the ASA expects from a web design agency's own advertising

What to take away

What the CAP Code requires of a web design agency's own advertising

Most agencies think of advertising rules as something that applies to clients. They apply to the agency too. Your homepage, your service pages, your case studies, your LinkedIn ads and your Google Ads are all marketing communications under the CAP Code.

In the UK, the Advertising Standards Authority acts as an independent regulator of advertising. It administers the CAP Code for non-broadcast advertising, which covers websites, social media, paid search, email and printed matter. Broadcast ads fall under the BCAP Code instead.

Both codes sit alongside each other, and the ASA enforces them through the same complaints process. If you want to read the source documents, the advertising codes published by the ASA set out the full text.

The CAP Code is not legislation. It is a self-regulatory code, but it is enforced with real consequences, and it is written in a way that assumes the advertiser can prove what it says.

Misleading claims and the burden of proof

The central rule is that marketing communications must not mislead, and must not be likely to mislead, by action or omission. That includes claims about results, prices, timescales, credentials and comparisons.

What catches agencies out is the burden of proof. Under the CAP Code, the ASA expects the advertiser to hold evidence before the claim is published. A complainant does not have to prove you wrong.

You have to prove yourself right, and if the evidence is not there at the time of the complaint, the complaint is likely to be upheld.

Evidence means contemporaneous documents: analytics exports, signed client approvals, award certificates, ranking methodology, test results. A verbal assurance from a client is not evidence. A screenshot without a date is weak evidence.

Claims about results

Performance claims are the most common source of upheld complaints against agencies. A line such as "we double our clients' conversion rates" reads as a typical or promised outcome. If it reflects one project, it is misleading by omission.

If you want to make a results claim, tie it to a named client, a stated period, a starting figure and a measurement method. "Conversion rate on the checkout page rose from 1.8 per cent to 3.1 per cent between January and June 2025, measured in Google Analytics 4 for Acme Ltd" is defensible. "We double conversions" is not.

Where a claim is based on a small sample, say so. Where a result depended on factors outside your control, such as a client's pricing change, say so. Qualification is not weakness. It is the difference between a claim that survives a complaint and one that does not.

Testimonials and endorsements

Testimonials must be genuine, and they must not be presented in a way that implies a typical result if they are exceptional. Client quotes used in a case study should be attributable and, ideally, approved in writing.

If a testimonial contains a claim about results, that claim is your claim. The ASA has treated quoted material as part of the marketing communication when the advertiser adopts it. Keep the same evidence standard for a client's words as for your own.

Pricing and availability claims

"From £5,000" is fine if projects genuinely start at that figure and the scope is described. It is misleading if the entry price applies only to a stripped-back package that no realistic client buys, or if hidden costs push the typical project far higher.

Time-limited offers need real deadlines. "Offer ends Friday" must end on Friday. If the deadline rolls over every week, the urgency is false and the ASA can treat it as misleading.

Comparative and superiority claims

"The UK's leading web design agency" is a superiority claim. It needs a basis that a reasonable reader would accept, and the basis needs to be stated or obvious. Turnover, headcount, client count, review scores and award counts are all possible bases, but each points in a different direction, so pick one and say what it is.

Comparisons with named competitors attract the highest scrutiny. If you name a rival, the comparison must be like for like, based on verifiable data, and not disparaging. Most agencies are better off comparing themselves to a stated benchmark than to a named firm.

Awards, rankings and results claims that attract ASA rulings

Awards claims and rankings claims are where agency marketing most often goes wrong, because the underlying facts are real but the presentation overstates them.

The ASA publishes its decisions in full, and the rulings database maintained by the ASA is the best place to see how adjudications are reasoned. Read a handful of upheld rulings in your sector before you write your next case study. The pattern is consistent: the claim was broader than the evidence.

Awards claims

An award win is a strong claim, and it is easy to state precisely. Name the awarding body, the category, the year and, where relevant, the entrant type. "Best ecommerce site, Northern Digital Awards 2025" is precise. "Award-winning agency" is not, because it tells the reader nothing they can check.

Two failures recur. The first is the plural. If you won one award, "award-winning" may still be defensible, but "multi-award-winning" is not. The second is the shortlist. Being shortlisted or nominated is not a win, and presenting it as one is misleading.

Awards that entrants pay to enter, or that every entrant receives, weaken the claim. If the award is a paid-entry scheme with a high win rate, describing it as an industry accolade without qualification can mislead.

Rankings claims

Rankings claims include "top 10 agency", "number one in Manchester" and directory badges. Each needs a stated basis: who compiled the ranking, on what criteria, over what period, and from how many firms.

A directory badge that reflects a paid listing rather than an assessment is not a ranking. If you display one, describe it as a listing, not a ranking. The same applies to review-platform badges, which often reflect a threshold of reviews rather than a position.

Where a ranking is based on a survey, say who was surveyed and how many responded. A poll of twenty people is not a national ranking.

Results claims in case studies

Case studies are the highest-risk page on most agency sites, because they combine client names, figures and implied causation. Three habits keep them defensible.

First, separate what you did from what happened. The redesign, the migration and the content work are your contribution. The revenue rise is the outcome, and other factors contributed.

Second, date the figures. A conversion rate without a period is unverifiable.

Third, get written approval from the client for the figures and the name. Agencies that skip this step sometimes find a client objecting publicly, which is worse than a quiet correction.

A missing paperwork trail produces a hold verdict, as set out in claims, evidence gaps and a hold verdict.

Client names and confidentiality

You can describe work without naming the client if the contract forbids it. What you cannot do is imply a client relationship that does not exist, or use a former client's name to suggest current work. Logos on a homepage imply a current or recent relationship, so rotate them out when the relationship ends.

Checking each claim before publishing with Copy Advice

Copy Advice is the ASA's free, confidential pre-publication service. You send draft copy, and the team tells you whether it is likely to comply with the CAP Code. It is not a clearance certificate, and it does not bind the ASA if a complaint later arrives, but it is the single most useful check available to an agency marketer.

Use it for new claim types, not for every sentence. The service is best deployed on a homepage headline, a paid search ad, a new case study format or a comparison page.

The Copy Advice service run by the ASA accepts enquiries through its online form. Turnaround is usually a few working days, so build it into your publishing schedule rather than treating it as an emergency step.

How to run a claim through Copy Advice

A written record matters. If a complaint arrives a year later, you want to show what you published, what you asked and what you were told.

Keeping an evidence file per claim

Every substantive claim should have a folder. Put the claim text, the evidence, the date the evidence was captured, the person who verified it and the Copy Advice response in one place. When the evidence goes stale, the claim comes down.

the evidence ladder shown sets out what counts as strong, moderate and weak support.

Sanctions, ad alerts and non-compliant online advertisers

When the ASA upholds a complaint, the first outcome is a published ruling that names the advertiser and the ad. Most agencies comply at that point, because the ruling is public and permanent.

If an advertiser does not comply, the sanctions escalate. The sanctions the ASA can apply include paid search advertising against the advertiser's own name, so that someone searching for the agency sees the ASA's own notice, and ad alerts circulated to publishers and networks.

For an agency, the paid search sanction is unusually damaging. Your prospects are already searching your name. Having the regulator appear above you in those results undermines the exact service you sell.

Ad alerts and the CAP Code

Ad alerts go to publishers, ad networks and platforms, which may then refuse to carry the advertiser's ads. For an agency that buys media on behalf of clients, a compliance failure on its own advertising is a commercial problem as well as a regulatory one.

Online advertisers and the ASA's monitoring

The ASA monitors online advertising actively, including agency sites and social media. It also acts on complaints from competitors, clients and members of the public. Competitor complaints are common in crowded regional markets.

Persistent non-compliance can be referred onward. The ASA has arrangements with other regulators, including the Competition and Markets Authority and Trading Standards, for cases where self-regulation does not resolve the problem.

What a ruling costs you beyond the ruling

A ruling appears in search results for your agency name. It is cited by prospects during pitches. It is visible to procurement teams running due diligence. The reputational cost usually exceeds any benefit the original claim delivered.

A claim-by-claim review table for agency marketing copy

Use this table as a triage tool. It maps common agency claims to the evidence needed and the usual failure mode.

Run each row against your live pages once a quarter. Claims drift as evidence ages.

A pre-publication checklist

A worked example

An agency drafts a homepage line: "Award-winning Manchester agency that doubles client revenue." Three problems. The award is unnamed. The ranking basis is absent. The results claim has no client, period or baseline.

Rewrite: "Web design and build for ecommerce teams in Greater Manchester. Winner, Best Ecommerce Project, Northern Digital Awards 2025. For Acme Ltd, checkout conversion rose from 1.8 per cent to 3.1 per cent between January and June 2025."

The second version is longer and less punchy. It is also defensible, and it reads as more credible to a buyer who has seen a hundred vague agency headlines. For a fuller treatment of how to work through a single claim, see a claim-by-claim advertising check.

Disclosure around authorship and client ties

Claims about who wrote a case study, who tested a build and whether a client relationship exists are increasingly scrutinised. A published policy covering authorship, testing and client ties removes ambiguity before a complaint arises.

Where consumer protection law overlaps with ASA rules

The CAP Code is not the only regime. The Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 prohibit misleading actions and omissions in commercial practices, and they apply to business-to-business marketing where a business is acting as a consumer, as well as to consumer-facing copy.

The regulations are enforced by the Competition and Markets Authority and by Trading Standards, not by the ASA. That means a single claim can attract two separate routes to enforcement.

Misleading actions and omissions

A misleading action is a false statement, or one that deceives or is likely to deceive. A misleading omission is the failure to give information the average consumer needs to make an informed decision. Both map closely onto the CAP Code's misleadingness rules, but the legal route carries statutory consequences.

Fake reviews and the CMA

The CMA has taken action on fake and misleading reviews. Buying reviews, suppressing negative ones selectively, or presenting a review platform as independent when it is not can all fall foul of consumer law.

If you display review scores, describe how they are collected and whether all reviews are shown. A score that reflects only solicited positive reviews is misleading by omission.

UK GDPR and data claims

Claims about data handling sit under UK GDPR and the Data Protection Act 2018, overseen by the Information Commissioner's Office. Saying you are "GDPR certified" when no such certification exists is a misleading claim in its own right. Describe your practices instead: where data is hosted, how long it is retained, who processes it.

Company records and credentials

Companies House records are public. Claims about company age, registered status or directors can be checked by anyone in seconds. Keep your marketing consistent with the register, and update it when the register changes.

Where the two regimes diverge

The ASA can act on a single complaint and publish a ruling quickly. The CMA and Trading Standards tend to act on patterns and on consumer detriment, and their powers include court orders and fines. The ASA route is faster; the legal route is heavier. Neither replaces the other.

Common questions