A complaint against easyJet Holidays by rival Thomas Cook has been rejected by advertising watchdogs.
Thomas Cook Tour Operations argued that easyJet Holidays' adverts, which appeared online and in the press, made unfair comparisons between the two company's package holiday prices.
Cook complained to the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) that some of the Thomas Cook holidays listed in the advert were not Thomas Cook's but holiday for which it was an agent. It also pointed out that its holidays included a rep, which easyJet's did not, that the rooms varied with different operators, and it challenged easyJet's statement that it offered "complete holiday flexibility".
The ASA rejected Cook's complaints, but it upheld a complaint from a member of the public who challenged whether easyJet offered 100,000 rooms and fully-protected holidays, as suggested in its ads.
The ASA said that when duplication had been accounted for easyJet offered fewer than 100,000 hotels. Although the company had taken out public protection insurance against its own insolvency, the ASA said the term "fully protected" implied a greater level of protection and ordered easyJet not to repeat the phrase "choice of 100,000 hotels" and to be more specific about what level of insurance cover was included.
Flight comparison website Skyscanner also fell foul of the ASA, which found it had misled consumers when it advertised prices from London to New York from £262.
When challenged, Skyscanner said it was unable to demonstrate that the advertised flights had been available. It said its online banner advertising was updated every 24 hours, using data feeds from 500 airlines and online travel partners, but it only kept the data for 10 days.
The ASA said it accepted that as Skyscanner's fares were only updated every 24 hours it was possible the cheapest flights were no longer available when the ads were viewed by consumers, but it said it was concerned the ads did not make it clear that the 'from' prices might be withdrawn without notice.
"As Skyscanner were unable to demonstrate that flights had been made available at the advertised price, we concluded that the ad was misleading," said the ASA. It told Skyscanner to ensure that some flights were available at the 'from' prices advertised at the time the ad appeared and to make it clear the offers may be withdrawn without notice.
By Linsey McNeill
