{"id":388971,"date":"2025-09-01T09:51:16","date_gmt":"2025-09-01T09:51:16","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/388971\/"},"modified":"2025-09-01T09:51:16","modified_gmt":"2025-09-01T09:51:16","slug":"asa-rules-on-pricing-of-subscription-offer-health-safety","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/388971\/","title":{"rendered":"ASA Rules On Pricing Of Subscription Offer &#8211; Health &#038; Safety"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>The ASA has <a href=\"https:\/\/www.asa.org.uk\/rulings\/team-rh-fitness-ltd.html\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">ruled<\/a> on how the pricing for a health and&#13;<br \/>\nfitness app subscription was presented.<\/p>\n<p>An ad for the app featured pricing information. Text stated,&#13;<br \/>\n&#8220;Pay monthly \u00a37.99&#8221; and &#8220;Pay once \u00a379.99&#13;<br \/>\n(Annual)&#8221;. A button stated, &#8220;Buy now&#8221; under each&#13;<br \/>\noption, which linked through to a checkout page.<\/p>\n<p>Four complainants challenged if the ad made it clear that the&#13;<br \/>\nsubscription was for a minimum term of 12 months.<\/p>\n<p>Team RH Fitness Ltd t\/a Team RH believed the pricing and&#13;<br \/>\n12-month commitment for their monthly plan were both clearly&#13;<br \/>\npresented on their website and did not mislead consumers. They&#13;<br \/>\nsought to rely on their terms and conditions which consumers had to&#13;<br \/>\naccept before paying.<\/p>\n<p>The ASA considered that consumers would understand the claims&#13;<br \/>\n&#8220;Pay monthly \u00a37.99&#8221; and &#8220;Pay once \u00a379.99&#13;<br \/>\n(Annual)&#8221; to mean they had the option to pay either&#13;<br \/>\n\u00a37.99 on a rolling monthly basis, or a one-off annual payment&#13;<br \/>\nof \u00a379.99. In particular, it thought that consumers were&#13;<br \/>\nlikely to interpret the \u00a37.99 monthly option as something&#13;<br \/>\nthey could cancel at any time.<\/p>\n<p>However, the \u00a37.99 price was subject to a minimum&#13;<br \/>\ncommitment of 12 months. In addition, to download the app,&#13;<br \/>\nconsumers were asked to waive their right to a 14-day cooling off&#13;<br \/>\nperiod. This meant that consumers who selected the monthly plan&#13;<br \/>\nwere committed to a minimum total payment of \u00a395.88. This was&#13;<br \/>\nsignificant information that consumers needed upfront to make an&#13;<br \/>\ninformed decision about whether to proceed with the&#13;<br \/>\nsubscription.<\/p>\n<p>The pricing page did not make any reference to the 12-month&#13;<br \/>\nminimum commitment. It was only presented in small subtext beneath&#13;<br \/>\nthe payment button. Even though consumers had to accept the terms,&#13;<br \/>\nthe ASA said that the existence of a minimum term was significant&#13;<br \/>\nand should have been clearly stated on the pricing page itself,&#13;<br \/>\nrather than after clicking through to the checkout.<\/p>\n<p>Because the ad did not make clear that the minimum period for&#13;<br \/>\nthe subscription was 12 months, the ASA considered that the ad was&#13;<br \/>\nmisleading and told Team RH Fitness Ltd t\/a Team RH to ensure that&#13;<br \/>\nthey did not mislead consumers by omitting to mention that the&#13;<br \/>\nsubscription was for a minimum period of 12 months.<\/p>\n<p>This ruling comes against the backdrop of the new Digital&#13;<br \/>\nMarkets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024 (DMCCA), which&#13;<br \/>\nintroduced new provisions about pricing in April this year. The CMA&#13;<br \/>\nalso recently consulted on certain aspects of price transparency,&#13;<br \/>\nwhich included new <a href=\"https:\/\/www.gov.uk\/government\/consultations\/draft-guidance-for-businesses-on-price-transparency\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">draft guidance<\/a> on the pricing of subscription&#13;<br \/>\ncontracts. An example in the guidance that is relevant to this&#13;<br \/>\nruling concerned an annual gym membership. The example says that a&#13;<br \/>\ngym might offer an annual membership for \u00a370 a month with a&#13;<br \/>\n\u00a330 one-off joining fee. The price of this membership could&#13;<br \/>\nbe advertised as &#8220;\u00a370 per month for 12 months, plus a&#13;<br \/>\n\u00a330 joining fee (Total price for a year: \u00a3870)&#8221;.&#13;<br \/>\nThe guidance said it would also be lawful for the price to be&#13;<br \/>\npresented as &#8220;12 months Membership: You pay \u00a3100 for the&#13;<br \/>\nfirst month, then \u00a370 per month for the remaining 11&#13;<br \/>\nmonths&#8221;. The difference here is that it makes clear that you&#13;<br \/>\nhave to pay for the entire year.<\/p>\n<p>When advertising a subscription product, it is vital to make&#13;<br \/>\nsure that pricing options are clear to consumers, and that it&#8217;s&#13;<br \/>\nalso clear if there&#8217;s a minimum term, and how long it is.&#13;<br \/>\nHowever, it is important to remember that the DMCCA also introduces&#13;<br \/>\nnew rules on the sale and auto renewal of subscription contracts&#13;<br \/>\nthat are due to come into force around Spring 2026. We are&#13;<br \/>\ncurrently waiting for the <a href=\"http:\/\/www.mondaq.com\/redirection.asp?article_id=1672408&amp;company_id=3442&amp;redirectaddress=https:\/\/www.lewissilkin.com\/insights\/2024\/11\/28\/subscription-contractsthe-devil-is-in-the-detail-consultation-on-nuts-and-bol-102jptm\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">final guidance<\/a> on how those rules will&#13;<br \/>\noperate, especially to deal with the situation where a consumer&#13;<br \/>\ncancels a subscription contract during the cooling-off period but&#13;<br \/>\nhas used the service in some way during that time.<\/p>\n<p>The content of this article is intended to provide a general&#13;<br \/>\nguide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought&#13;<br \/>\nabout your specific circumstances.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"The ASA has ruled on how the pricing for a health and&#13; fitness app subscription was presented. An&hellip;\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":42633,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[3,4],"tags":[748,393,4884,1144,712,16,15,1764],"class_list":{"0":"post-388971","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","5":"has-post-thumbnail","7":"category-uk","8":"category-united-kingdom","9":"tag-britain","10":"tag-england","11":"tag-great-britain","12":"tag-northern-ireland","13":"tag-scotland","14":"tag-uk","15":"tag-united-kingdom","16":"tag-wales"},"share_on_mastodon":{"url":"https:\/\/pubeurope.com\/@uk\/115128427230790354","error":""},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/388971","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=388971"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/388971\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/42633"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=388971"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=388971"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=388971"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}