The Advertising Standards Authority has upheld a complaint against a website claiming to reveal ‘Which food is best for my pet’, and ruled the ad must not appear again in its current format.

The watchdog investigated the matter following a complaint by Butternut Box. The complainant challenged whether the claim by www.petfoodexpert.com was misleading because it wasn’t made clear it was owned by a competitor, Pets Corner.

In response to the claim Pets Corner (UK) Ltd stated that Pet Food Expert was an opinion-free, fact-based site intended to allow pet owners to identify pet foods that met their needs. The site awarded each product it featured an “ingredient score”. It also provided information about the allergens each product contained and the company which sold the product. They said all the information on the website was based on product packaging, the presence of ingredients known to cause allergic reactions in pets, and company websites and social media channels. They believed that all comparisons made on the Pet Food Expert site were factual and objective, and that the scoring system used was transparent. 

Pet Food Expert said information about the ownership of the site was clearly disclosed to consumers. On the “Frequently Asked Questions” page of the website, the answer to the question “Who Created Pet Food Expert” stated that it was created by Pets Corner. They believed that disclosure was unambiguous and easily accessible to users of the site. 

In answer to the question “If you’re owned by Pets Corner, aren’t you biased toward your own foods?” the website stated “The Pet Food Expert has many pet food brands listed and Pets Corner only have an interest in Greenacres and More. These products are reviewed in the same way as every other product. 

It went on to state that Pet Food Expert was simply an unbiased place where pet owners could go for clarity. What they decide to buy – and where they decide to buy it from – was entirely up to them.

Pet Food Expert stated that the website made no attempt to conceal the involvement of Pets Corner or suggest that Pet Food Expert was operated by an independent third party or consumer group. 

In its assessment the ASA said: “We acknowledged that information about the ownership of Pet Food Expert was available on the “About” page of the website. However, we understood that the site could be navigated and used without viewing that section of the website. The “About” page of the website was therefore insufficient to alter the overall impression created by the ad that the website was independent. 

“Because the ad implied that Pet Food Expert was an independent food comparison site and did not make clear that it was owned by a pet food retailer, we concluded it falsely implied Pets Corner were acting for purposes outside their business and was misleading.”

The ASA ruled that the ad must not appear again in its current form. “We told Pets Corner (UK) Ltd t/a Pet Food Expert to ensure future marketing communications did not falsely claim or imply they were acting for purposes outside their trade, for example, by presenting websites over which they had control as independent,” it concluded

The full ruling can be viewed by clicking here

It now clearly states on the www.petfoodexpert.com website that Pet Food Expert is a Pets Corner service.