The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) has updated its guidance on promotional savings claims in advertising. The ASA has emphasized that reference prices must represent genuine established usual selling prices, considering factors such as recency, duration, pricing history, sales data, and sales channels. The guidance clarifies that 'up to' and 'from' claims should not exaggerate potential savings, with a significant proportion (typically over 10%) of items available at the maximum discount. The ASA has also stressed that introductory offers must be clearly described as such. Recent rulings against companies like Simba Sleep Ltd and Debenhams highlight the ASA's continued focus on preventing misleading savings claims in advertisements.

The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) has updated its guidance on the advertising of in-game purchases. The guidance sets out what advertisers must do to advertise in-game purchases, and the games that feature them, responsibly and without misleading consumers. A review of the guidance has been undertaken to ensure that it remains helpful to the industry and that consumers remain protected amid the growth in the gaming industry. The review has confirmed that the guidance remains accurate and appropriate and only minor amendments have been made.

The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) has upheld two complaints against AirDoctor LLC and health.detective Garstang Health Food Store Ltd concerning a TikTok post promoting the AmazingAir filter. The ad, which appeared on 27 December 2024, was not clearly identifiable as a marketing communication and included unlicensed medical claims regarding the treatment of a persistent cough in a child. The ASA found that the post featured a QR code linking to a purchase page, indicating a commercial intent that was not disclosed through labels such as '#ad'. The ad also claimed that the air filter could alleviate cough symptoms, but no evidence was provided that the product was appropriately licensed or CE-marked as a medical device. As a result, the ad breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 2.1, 2.3 and 12.1. The advertisers failed to respond to the ASA’s enquiries, breaching rule 1.7. The ASA instructed the ad must not appear again in its current form and referred the matter to CAP’s Compliance team.

Commercial analysis: The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) has upheld complaints about a competition for subscribers to The Sun’s Dream Team fantasy football competition to win a date with a Page Three girl. What does the decision mean for advertisers and their legal advisers?

The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) has upheld a complaint concerning a Boots promotion for a free No7 face lotion, reinforcing that promoters must take reasonable steps to anticipate likely demand and ensure adequate availability of promotional items. The ASA emphasised that qualifications such as ‘subject to availability’ and ‘while stocks last’ do not remove the obligation to avoid causing participants unnecessary disappointment.

The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) and the Committees of Advertising Practice (CAP) have published their 2025 annual report, outlining their response to rapid developments in online advertising. The report highlights that the ASA scanned nearly 60 million online advertisements using its artificial intelligence (AI)-driven Active Ad Monitoring system, resolved over 40,000 complaints and secured the amendment or removal of 22,383 advertisements. CAP also delivered 596,039 pieces of advice and training to businesses across the UK to support compliance.

NOTE—appeal lodged by Avio before the General Court in Case T- 139/18 ARCHIVED–this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the decision of 20 July 2016; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline, commentary and related cases. Case facts Outline European Commission merger investigation into the planned acquisition by Airbus Safran Launchers (ASL, a 50/50 joint venture controlled by Airbus and Safran) of Arianespace (Case M.7724). The transaction involves vertical overlaps in satellite and launch service markets. Latest developments The Commission cleared the transaction subject to commitments on 20 July 2016. Under the commitments, aimed at addressing concerns that potential flows of sensitive information between the companies could harm competition, the parties will:• implement firewalls between Airbus and Arianespace to prevent information exchanges that may harm competitors; in particular, the companies will not share information with each other about third parties except for what is normally required for the everyday operation of the business • implement measures restricting the mobility of employees between the companies, and • establish an arbitration mechanism to be included in all their future non-disclosure

Autorité de Sûreté Nucléaire: The French Nuclear Safety Authority is tasked, on behalf of the French State, with regulating nuclear safety and radiation protection in order to protect workers, patients, the public and the environment from the risks involved in nuclear activities in France. It also contributes to informing the citizens.

Dispute Resolution analysis: The case concerns the defendant’s (‘Accor’) application for further security for costs from the claimant (‘Lloyds’); who was in administration. The primary issues concerned whether the claimant’s ATE policy was sufficient to replace a payment into court; the adequacy of the policy; and finally, the amount of security to be paid. It was found that there were deficiencies in the drafting of the policy and the Anti-Avoidance Endorsement (‘AAE’) rendering the ATE policy insufficient to replace a payment into court. However, these could be rectified; and indeed, could have been rectified previously, if the defendant had engaged with the claimant at an earlier stage. In light of Accor’s failure to engage constructively in advance of the hearing, the claimant was granted 10 days to refine the policy and address the deficiencies. Providing that the policy then met the judge’s concerns, it would be sufficient to meet the further security ordered, of £882,336. Written by Lucy Hodgkins, senior associate Costs Lawyer at Paragon Costs Solutions.

A now-abolished capital gains tax charge on disposals between 6 April 2013 and 5 April 2019 of property interests falling within the scope of the annual tax on enveloped dwellings by both resident and non-resident, non-natural persons.

The basic charge to ATED is explained in Practice Note: ATED—the basics. This Practice Note summarises how ATED is administered and the steps taxpayers need to take in relation to payment of ATED. This Practice Note uses various expressions and concepts used in the ATED legislation which are explained in detail in Practice Note: ATED—the basics—General defined terms. ATED is a self-assessed tax and the duty is on the chargeable person (as defined for ATED purposes) to determine whether ATED is applicable to a property interest and submit the relevant returns along with payment of any ATED due to HMRC within the applicable deadlines. What returns need to be submitted to HMRC? ATED return Where the conditions for ATED are satisfied, the chargeable person must submit an ATED return to HMRC. For details on completing an ATED return, see below: Completing an ATED return. There is no statutory obligation on HMRC to issue a notice to a taxpayer concerning the requirement to submit an ATED return. Deadlines for submitting an ATED return Where the conditions

What reliefs and exemptions are available? The basic charge to annual tax on enveloped dwellings (ATED) is explained in Practice Note: Annual tax on enveloped dwellings (ATED)—the basics. A number of reliefs and exemptions are available from ATED which are summarised below and considered in more detail in this Practice Note. The most commonly encountered reliefs from ATED in practice include relief in relation to: • property rental businesses • property developers • property traders, and • financial institutions acquiring dwellings in the course of lending Additional reliefs from ATED are available in particular circumstances and are summarised below. A further relief, called interim relief, is available to assist with the cash flow position of taxpayers. Interim relief is a mechanism for claiming reliefs from ATED rather than a relief from ATED in its own right. Bodies exempt from ATED include: • subject to certain conditions, charitable companies, and • public bodies and bodies established for national purposes HMRC published the ATED: Reducing the administrative burden for business consultation document in July 2014, considering how