ASA and CAP issue guidance on accessibility provisions in advertising

CAP and BCAP have published new guidance on how the advertising codes apply when advertisers use accessibility features such as audio description, closed captions and signing. The message is simple but important: if an ad contains material information, that information must not be lost to consumers who rely on those features.

For advertisers, agencies and their legal advisers, this is a reminder that accessibility is not just a question of inclusive production values. It can also affect whether an ad is misleading. If key qualifications, conditions or offer details are available to some consumers but not to others, the ASA may view that as a compliance issue.

Where the use, or omission, of accessibility provisions misleads consumers, or causes harm or serious offence, the issue can fall within the ASA’s remit under the CAP and BCAP Codes.

Why this matters

The immediate focus may be broadcast audiovisual advertising and audio description, but the principle is wider. The same analysis may be relevant to other audiovisual formats covered by the codes, including cinema, online video and some forms of outdoor advertising. For brands running multichannel campaigns, that makes accessibility a clearance issue, as well as a creative one.

The key legal and regulatory point

The central question is whether the relevant information is “material”. In this context, that means information the average consumer needs to make an informed transactional decision about the product, service or offer.

If material information is communicated visually, aurally or through on-screen text, advertisers should consider whether it also needs to be included in the accessibility feature being used. The objective is that consumers relying on accessibility features receive the same essential information as other viewers.

In practice, this is most likely to matter where on-screen qualifications, pricing information, contractual conditions, eligibility criteria or other key limitations are needed to understand the offer. If those points are material, they should not disappear for audiences using audio description, captions, signing or similar features.

The same logic applies in reverse: where material information is delivered through a voice-over, closed captions should also communicate it for audiences relying on captioning.

Example 1: price claim qualified by on-screen conditions

The guidance gives the example of a phone ad where the spoken claim is “New phone, £199”, while prominent on-screen text explains that the price is subject to a 48-month contract and a 20GB data cap.

If those conditions are omitted from the audio description, visually impaired audiences may hear the headline price but not the limitations that explain it. That would be likely to mislead because material information needed to understand the offer has not been communicated through the accessibility feature.

Example 2: non-material descriptive text

By contrast, the guidance also gives the example of a laptop ad containing superimposed text such as “laptop of your dreams” and “340 stores nationwide”.

Because that text does not appear to give the consumer information needed to understand the offer, omitting it from the audio description would be unlikely to mislead. The key distinction is not whether words appear on-screen, but whether they are material to the consumer’s decision.

What advertisers and agencies should do now

Accessibility should be considered early in campaign development, not treated as a late-stage bolt-on. CAP and BCAP’s stakeholder engagement emphasised the value of “accessibility by design”: building accessibility into scripting, creative development, claims substantiation and clearance planning from the outset. In practical terms, that means checking not only what the ad says, but who can receive the information and how.