One of the most common regulatory challenges faced by advertisers is whether their online ads have omitted material information or only provide it too late in the customer journey. The problem is particularly acute with social media ads which are constrained by space limitations. If material information is omitted, or provided too late, then ads are likely to be misleading. But deciding what to include can also be one of the most difficult judgment calls for lawyers.

The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) has now published new consumer research on when "material information" should be included in paid online advertising, rather than provided only after a click-through to a landing page. The findings suggest that while consumers often accept some information being one click away, they expect key details to be stated upfront where the product, pricing model or level of risk makes that information central to an informed decision. For advertisers, the report is a useful reminder that the question is not simply whether information is available somewhere, but whether it is presented clearly and in time.

Advertising must not materially mislead by action or omission. "Material information" is information the "average consumer" needs to make an informed "transactional decision", and that concept extends beyond the final purchase itself. It can include earlier decisions such as whether to click on an ad, explore an offer further or engage with a product or service at all.

Whether an omission is misleading will depend on context. The ASA will look at how the average consumer is likely to understand the ad and whether the presentation of the information could cause them to take a transactional decision they would not otherwise have taken. The average consumer is defined as someone who is reasonably well-informed, observant and circumspect. It is important to note that the ASA does not need to show that most consumers would be misled. The ASA applies a qualitative assessment, and it finds that a significant minority of consumers are likely to be misled, that may be enough to establish a breach of the CAP Code.

In some space-constrained formats, such as social media ads,  it may be acceptable for some material information to appear on the landing page rather than in the ad itself, depending on the nature of the information and the overall impression created by the ad.

Against that backdrop, the ASA commissioned research by Jigsaw to understand consumer expectations around material information in paid online ads and when consumers consider it acceptable for that information to be only one click away on a landing page. The research, published in May 2026, is intended to inform the ASA's approach to regulation in this area.

What did the research find?

The research found that consumers view online advertising as offering both opportunity and risk. On the one hand, online ads are associated with convenience, choice, targeted relevance and access to discounts. On the other hand, consumers remain concerned about scams, intrusive targeting, impulse purchasing and uncertainty about whether content is advertising at all. In that environment, tolerance for information being held back until the landing page is not unlimited and depends heavily on the subject matter of the ad.

Participants in the study showed different levels of comfort with engaging with online ads, ranging from those who were relatively open to them through to those who were highly sceptical and tended to avoid them. However, the majority sat somewhere in the middle: willing to engage, but cautious about doing so. That broader sense of caution helps explain why the prominence and timing of material information can make a significant difference.

Before seeing specific ad examples, many participants did not regard the upfront inclusion of all material information as essential, provided the information was clear and available before purchase. Familiarity with digital journeys, the practical limits of ad space and a willingness to click through for more detail all contributed to that initial view.

However, that tolerance reduced once participants were asked to consider specific scenarios. The research suggests that whether information can be left to the landing page depends less on the mechanics of online advertising and more on whether the omitted detail goes to price, commitment, risk or the overall nature of the product or service.

Information consumers were more willing to accept after click-through

The research suggests that consumers were generally more relaxed about certain details being provided after click-through where the omission was unlikely to affect their decision to engage further. Examples included offer end dates, conditions attaching to "free delivery", and information relating to relatively low-value or low-risk purchases.

Information consumers expected to see upfront

The information that consumers expect to see in the ad itself includes:

• pricing structures that materially affect the real cost of the product or service, including subscriptions, long-term contracts, variable pricing and in-app purchases;
• highly regulated or inherently risky products, with gambling cited as a particularly sensitive example; and
• high-stakes products and services, such as financial and medical offerings, where consumers are likely to expect a fuller picture at the earliest stage.

What does this mean for advertisers?

The research does not create new rules, but it does provide a clearer indication of how the ASA is likely to think about omissions in paid online advertising. That matters beyond the ASA context. The statutory regulator, the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) is also closely focused on pricing transparency and other online sales practices under the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024, including drip pricing and the omission of information consumers need to make informed decisions. The CMA has made clear that price transparency is one of its enforcement priorities.

For advertisers, the practical message is that this is not just about avoiding an ASA ruling. The CMA now has direct consumer enforcement powers and can investigate, order redress and impose significant financial penalties, including fines of up to 10% of global turnover in some cases. The recent fine of £4.2 million imposed on the AA driving school by the CMA for the late disclosure of a £3 booking fee is a case in point. Businesses should therefore review whether ads for subscriptions, introductory pricing, long-term commitments, regulated products and higher-risk services are presenting key pricing and commitment information early enough in the consumer journey. If omitted details could affect a consumer's decision to engage at all, the legal and enforcement risk is now substantially greater than a reputational issue before the ASA alone.