Key Points
- The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) has upheld complaints against Thomas Cook, loveholidays and DialAFlight over environmental claims used in online holiday advertising.
- The rulings concerned claims including “Eco Resort”, “Eco Hotel” and “eco-conscious resort”, which the ASA said were not sufficiently explained to consumers.
- The advertisements were identified through the ASA’s Active Ad Monitoring system, which uses AI to proactively search for potentially problematic online adverts.
- Thomas Cook’s paid Google advert promoted Sandos Caracol Eco Resort in Mexico. The company said the wording had been generated in response to consumers’ search terms and that the resort had changed its name in July 2025.
- loveholidays had two paid Google advertisements promoting Green Garden Eco Resort and Marvida Family Eco Hotel. The company argued that “Eco” formed part of the properties’ trading names rather than representing an environmental claim made by loveholidays.
- DialAFlight advertised Jumeirah at Saadiyat Island Resort as an “eco-conscious resort” in a paid Meta advertisement. It said the description came from information supplied by the accommodation.
- The ASA found that consumers could reasonably understand “eco” and “eco-conscious” as descriptions of environmental characteristics or benefits, even where those words formed part of a hotel’s name.
- The regulator said the term “eco” has no standardised meaning, making it necessary for advertisers to explain the basis of such claims.
- The ASA said the properties did have environmental initiatives, but those initiatives were not clearly communicated in the advertisements or through sufficiently prominent linked information.
- All three rulings involved breaches of CAP Code rules 3.1, 3.3 and 11.1, covering misleading advertising and environmental claims.
- ASA director of complaints and investigations Miles Lockwood said consumers need to be able to trust environmental claims when making more environmentally conscious holiday choices.
The Advertising Standards Authority has ruled that adverts from Thomas Cook, loveholidays and DialAFlight breached UK advertising rules because claims describing hotels and resorts as “eco” or “eco-conscious” did not adequately explain the environmental basis for those descriptions. The decisions form part of a wider ASA examination of environmental claims in the travel-agent sector.
What did the ASA rule about the three travel firms’ adverts?
According to Josie Clarke, Press Association Consumer Affairs Correspondent, in a report published by The Independent, the three travel companies used environmental terminology in online advertising without making clear what the claims were based on. The report identified Thomas Cook, loveholidays and DialAFlight as the firms whose advertisements were subject to the ASA action.
The regulator published three separate rulings on 9 September 2026. Each complaint was upheld. The cases concerned paid-for advertising appearing through Google or Meta, rather than conventional television, radio or print campaigns.
The decisions are significant because the ASA did not accept that simply reproducing an accommodation’s official trading name necessarily removes the environmental meaning that consumers may attach to the word “eco”.
In its ruling concerning loveholidays, for example, the ASA acknowledged that “Eco” was part of the names supplied by the accommodation providers. Nevertheless, it concluded that consumers were likely to understand “Eco Resort” and “Eco Hotel” as descriptions suggesting environmental benefits or characteristics.
The regulator reached a similar conclusion regarding Thomas Cook’s use of “Eco Resort” and DialAFlight’s description of a property as “eco-conscious”.
What happened with Thomas Cook’s Sandos Caracol Eco Resort advert?
The Thomas Cook case centred on a paid-for Google advert seen on 15 July 2026. According to the ASA’s ruling, the advertisement displayed the words “Sandos Caracol Eco Resort”, followed by wording promoting a holiday with flights included and inviting customers to book with Thomas Cook.
Thomas Cook told the ASA that it had used Google’s Performance Max or Dynamic Search Ads tools when creating the advertisement. The company said these systems could automatically generate parts of search advertising based on the terms entered by consumers.
As a result, Thomas Cook argued that “Eco Resort” appeared automatically in response to users’ search terms rather than being deliberately formulated by the company as a separate environmental representation.
The company also explained that the hotel had changed its name in July 2025. However, Thomas Cook said some consumers might still have known the property by its former name and therefore continued to search for it using the old wording.
After receiving correspondence from the ASA, Thomas Cook said it had taken steps to block “Sandos Caracol Eco” as a search keyword so that the wording would not appear in future searches.
The ASA nevertheless upheld the complaint.
The regulator said the environmental basis of a claim must be clear and that an unqualified claim could mislead consumers if important information was omitted. Although “Eco Resort” formed part of the accommodation’s name, the ASA concluded that consumers could also interpret it as a description of the resort.
The ASA noted that the resort’s website contained information about environmental initiatives, including solar power, water treatment systems and a nature reserve. However, those details were not clearly explained in the advertisement itself.
Why did the ASA reject loveholidays’ explanation about hotel names?
The loveholidays ruling involved two Google advertisements seen on 15 July 2026.
The first promoted Green Garden Eco Resort, while the second advertised Marvida Family Eco Hotel. The wording in the advertisements included the property names alongside holiday-booking and promotional information.
According to Josie Clarke of the Press Association, as reported by The Independent, loveholidays argued that the word “Eco” was part of each accommodation’s name and was not an environmental claim created, adopted or endorsed by the online travel agent.
The company told the ASA that it aggregated and resold accommodation supplied by independent hotels and resorts and did not own, operate or manage the properties advertised.
However, the regulator said this explanation did not resolve the problem because the advertisements themselves did not give consumers enough information to understand the environmental basis of the descriptions.
The ASA’s investigation found that Green Garden Eco Resort had taken steps including eliminating single-use plastics, using energy-efficient LED lighting and motion sensors to reduce electricity use, and avoiding harmful chemicals.
For Marvida Family Eco Hotel, the ASA identified measures including waste separation and recycling, efforts to reduce water and electricity consumption, and processes designed to reduce food waste.
The regulator did not say these measures were fictitious. Instead, its concern was that the advertising did not clearly communicate what “Eco Resort” or “Eco Hotel” actually meant.
That distinction is central to the rulings: the problem identified by the ASA was the presentation and substantiation of the environmental claim, rather than a finding that the properties had no environmental initiatives at all.
What did DialAFlight claim about Jumeirah at Saadiyat Island Resort?
The third case involved DialAFlight and a paid-for Meta advertisement seen on 30 July 2026.
The advertisement promoted Jumeirah at Saadiyat Island Resort and included video footage showing features of the property, including a swimming pool, food and drink areas and its beach. The advert described it as an “eco-conscious resort”.
DialAFlight told the ASA that the “eco-conscious resort” wording had been taken from a factsheet supplied by the accommodation.
The resort also supplied information about environmental initiatives carried out at the property. The ASA understood that these included efforts to reduce single-use plastics, greywater recycling, food-waste reduction, recycling facilities and environmental outreach work.
The ASA nevertheless found that the advertisement did not explain those environmental credentials sufficiently.
Importantly, the regulator said the advertisement was not so constrained by time or space that there was no opportunity to provide further information. It also found that the landing page did not explain the basis of the environmental claim.
The ruling therefore concluded that consumers were not given enough information to assess the relevance or significance of the environmental characteristics being claimed.
DialAFlight subsequently withdrew the advertisement, an action the ASA said it welcomed. The regulator instructed the company to ensure that the basis of future environmental claims was made clear.
What environmental measures did the hotels and resorts actually have?
The ASA rulings provide an important distinction between environmental action and environmental advertising claims.
For Thomas Cook’s Sandos Caracol Eco Resort, the regulator found evidence of solar power, water treatment systems and a nature reserve.
For the two properties advertised by loveholidays, the ASA identified various operational measures. Green Garden Eco Resort was understood to have reduced single-use plastics, introduced energy-saving lighting and motion sensors, and avoided harmful chemicals. Marvida Family Eco Hotel was understood to have waste separation and recycling systems and measures aimed at reducing water, electricity and food waste.
Jumeirah at Saadiyat Island Resort also has extensive sustainability information published by the resort. Its own materials describe measures including reducing single-use plastic, greywater recycling, food-waste management, recycling and other environmental initiatives.
The significance of the ASA decisions is therefore not that every environmental measure mentioned in the cases was rejected. Instead, the watchdog found that consumers could not adequately understand what the word “eco” meant in the specific advertisements they were viewing.
Why does the word “eco” matter under UK advertising rules?
The ASA said the word “eco” does not have a standardised meaning. That means consumers may interpret it differently depending on the product, service or accommodation being advertised.
For accommodation advertising, an “eco” description could potentially suggest a wide range of environmental characteristics, from energy efficiency and waste reduction to water conservation, biodiversity protection or reduced use of plastics.
The ASA’s position is that advertisers cannot simply rely on the broad impression created by the term without giving consumers enough information to understand the claim.
As Phil Davies of Travel Weekly reported, the rulings form part of a broader piece of work examining environmental claims within the travel-agent sector. Davies also reported that the advertisements were identified through the ASA’s Active Ad Monitoring system, which uses AI to search proactively for online advertising that may breach advertising rules.
This means the cases also illustrate how regulatory monitoring of digital advertising is becoming increasingly automated.
What did the ASA say consumers should expect from travel advertising?
ASA director of complaints and investigations Miles Lockwood said consumers seeking to make more environmentally conscious holiday choices need to be able to trust the environmental claims presented to them.
Lockwood’s message was that descriptions such as “eco” and “eco-conscious” must be accompanied by enough information to explain their meaning.
The principle applies even where the terminology originates with a hotel or resort rather than the travel agent itself.
For consumers, this is particularly relevant because online travel advertisements can appear at the point when someone is actively searching for accommodation. A short phrase in a Google result or social-media advert may therefore influence the customer’s decision before they reach the hotel’s full website.
The ASA’s rulings indicate that advertisers need to consider that context when deciding whether environmental information is sufficiently clear.
What were the consequences for the three companies?
The ASA upheld all three complaints and said the advertisements breached CAP Code Edition 12 rules 3.1, 3.3 and 11.1, relating to misleading advertising and environmental claims.
Thomas Cook was told that the advertisement must remain amended or withdrawn and was instructed to ensure the basis of environmental claims was clear.
Loveholidays was told that its advertisements must be amended or withdrawn and that future environmental claims must clearly explain their basis.
DialAFlight’s advertisement was withdrawn, and the ASA instructed the company to ensure the basis of environmental claims was made clear in future advertising.
Ruth Lawes of Travel Gossip reported that the ASA action covered four advertisements across the three online travel agents: one Thomas Cook Google advert, two loveholidays Google adverts and one DialAFlight Meta advert.
What does the ruling mean for the wider travel industry?
The cases are likely to be watched closely by travel companies and accommodation retailers because they demonstrate that environmental language can attract regulatory scrutiny even when the wording originates with a third-party hotel.
Matilda Cox of edie described the intervention as part of a wider tightening of scrutiny around environmental marketing, highlighting the question of whether “eco” is simply a name or a claim that consumers are entitled to interpret as evidence of environmental performance.
The rulings also demonstrate the importance of the information surrounding an environmental statement. An advertiser may have evidence that a property undertakes environmentally beneficial activities, but that evidence still needs to be communicated appropriately where the advertisement makes a broad environmental claim.
The ASA specifically pointed to the possibility of providing further information through a prominent landing page when space in an advertisement is limited. In these cases, however, it found that the necessary information had not been sufficiently communicated in that way.
The developments are relevant beyond tourism because environmental marketing increasingly forms part of corporate communications, product positioning and consumer decision-making. Clear evidence, accurate wording and transparent disclosure are becoming increasingly important when businesses communicate sustainability-related claims.
For organisations dealing with advertising compliance, environmental communications and consumer-facing messaging, these rulings also underline the importance of Legal, Contracts and Procurement and Media and Public Relations expertise, particularly where claims must be accurate, substantiated and clearly communicated to the public.