When can we go away?

9 February 2021 by

Snowed in while locked down? What would be more cheering reading than news from one of the no-frills airlines that there will soon be a fast track for vaccinated passengers to leave these shores for balmy Mediterranean beaches, or as the ad puts it “sunshine destinations”. Ryanair recently put out the slogan

Jab and Go

This advertising campaign, encouraging consumers to book flights following the roll out of the UK vaccination programme, might have been a perfectly understandable response to the year-long shock of having very few passengers to transport and the equally deranging inability of citizens to travel abroad.

But it turns out that Ryanair were somewhat ahead of themselves, as the Advertising Standards Authority has found that it was misleading for the airline to give the impression that most people who are hoping to take to the air over the Easter or summer holidays this year will have had the Covid-19 vaccination in time to do so.

Ryanair’s first advertisement, seen between 26 December 2020 and 3 January 2021, began with an image of a medical syringe and a vial labelled “VACCINE” and large on-screen text which stated “VACCINES ARE COMING”. A voice-over stated,

Covid vaccines are coming. So book your Easter and summer holidays today with Ryanair. One million seats on sale from £19.99 to sunshine destinations in Spain, Italy, Portugal, Greece and many more. So you could jab and go!

The television promotion showed groups of people in their twenties and thirties enjoying the holiday destinations. The voice-over continued, “Book today on Ryanair.com and if your plans change, so could your booking.” Large on-screen text appeared which stated “JAB & GO!”.

The ASA pointed out that it is not even settled that, post vaccination, anyone will be allowed to go on holiday without restrictions during those periods. As the weekly update put out by international law firm CMS neatly puts it:

The ASA also found that the ads implied that full protection could be achieved immediately through one dose of the vaccine, and that restrictions around social distancing and mask wearing would not be necessary once individuals were vaccinated.

Even apart from the airline’s lure of holidays abroad as winter expands into spring, the ASA found that the ads were irresponsible for epidemiological reasons. CMS observes that the ruling is of particular interest in its comments in relation to the “fast-moving nature of the pandemic response.”

[The ASA] refers to the evolution of the vaccine programme and government messaging from November 2020 to January 2021, which meant that consumers could easily be confused or uncertain about the situation at any given time. It also emphasises the need for caution when linking developments in the UK’s response to the pandemic to specific timeframes for life returning to normal. Advertisers seeking to promote products and services in response to public events should take note of the need for caution, and the potential for consumer uncertainty, in similar circumstances.

…we considered that based on the information available at the time it was clear that it was highly unlikely that societal groups outside of phase one of the rollout would be maximally protected in time to holiday in either summer or Easter 2021.

Ryanair sought to protect their marketing campaign by arguing that they did not make any claims concerning who would be vaccinated, when they would be vaccinated, how vaccines were to be administered or how long it would take to achieve maximal protection once vaccinated. Nor did they claim that vaccinations were a prerequisite to travel. Much turned upon the cautionary wording such as the conditional term “could” in the phrase “So you could jab and go”. This word “could” was to make it clear that not everybody would be able to be vaccinated by summer. The airline said in its defence that it had avoided any guarantee in the advertisement that people who wished to travel at Easter or summer 2021 would be vaccinated in time to do so.

Ryanair said that from autumn 2020 the public had received almost daily updates from the media, NHS and Government concerning the progress of approval of vaccines, the planned vaccination rollout through the NHS, and that the three vaccines closest to approval (Pfizer/BioNTech, Oxford/AstraZeneca and Moderna) would require two doses.

Ryanair argued that the government had used the term “jab” to describe the vaccines and they did not think viewers would interpret the word, when used in the ads, to refer to a single dose of vaccine.

In that context it would be clear to viewers that the ads did not imply that someone could have a single dose of vaccine and experience immediate immunity, enabling them to go on holiday. None of their advertisements made any claims concerning who would be vaccinated, when they would be vaccinated, how vaccines would be administered, or how long it would take for people to become fully protected. They also said that the word “could” in the claim avoided any guarantee that people who wished to travel would be vaccinated in time to do so.

The airline also argued, in response to the complaints that their advertisement was offensive, that

The term “jab” had been used widely to describe vaccines, including by the Government, and so they did not consider the language used was insensitive.

….  the ads did not trivialise the need to prioritise the rollout of the vaccine to vulnerable individuals, or encourage individuals to try to ‘jump the queue’. They highlighted that was not possible given that the vaccine was only available to those invited to make an appointment by the NHS based on the phased rollout schedule, and they considered the public was aware of that. 

The ASA weren’t having anything of it.

The overall presentation of the advertisement included images of a syringe and vaccine vial, and of holidaymakers shown close together and without masks. This is a reminder that ads should always be reviewed as a whole, and claims considered in context.

To be fair, advertisements such as the one under attack here, are always going to be economical with the truth. Ryanair’s marketers said that, at the time they cleared the scripts, the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine had just been approved, England was coming out of its second lockdown, and the government had announced that families would be able to meet at Christmas. They also emphasised the words “vaccines are coming”, which suggested a rollout rather than that vaccines were available to everyone immediately.

The word “could” was very much at the centre of this dispute. In the ASA’s view, the word “could”, in the claim “so you could jab and go!”, was overridden by the overall impact of the other elements of the ad.

These included the imagery of the syringe and vaccine vial, the claim “vaccines are coming”, and the large on-screen text “JAB & GO!” It also included scenes of people shown close together, jumping into a pool, and of a couple being served by a waiter, none of whom were wearing masks. In that context the ASA considered that viewers would understand the key message of the ads to be that once vaccinated against Covid-19 people could go on holiday without restrictions

Ryanair’s suggestion that even vaccinated people could travel abroad “without restrictions” in the spring was found by the ASA to be in breach of the rules on misleading advertising (BCAP Code rule 3.1). 

The ASA considered this could encourage vaccinated individuals to disregard or lessen their adherence to restrictions, which in the short term could expose them to the risk of serious illness, and in the longer term might result in them spreading the virus. As such, the ASA found the ads could encourage people to behave irresponsibly once vaccinated.

The ASA therefore concluded the ads were irresponsible and breached BCAP Code rule 1.2 (Responsible advertising). 

But they dismissed the complaint that the advertising was offensive.

Many complainants felt that the way in which the ads linked the start of the vaccine rollout to being able to go on holiday trivialised the need to prioritise the vaccine to those who were most medically vulnerable, and was insensitive to the pandemic’s impact on those who had been ill or who had lost someone to Covid-19, who worked on the frontline or who would not be able to be vaccinated.

However, the advertisement did not make any reference to those groups and whilst the tone was “celebratory” and the ASA did not consider it trivialised the wider impacts of the pandemic.

Whilst we acknowledged that many viewers had found the tone of the ads distasteful we considered they were unlikely to cause serious or widespread offence.


Advertising plays on a number of human instincts, such as fear, boredom, worry about stigma, and above all, a drive for in-group status. A combination of these with the daily C-19 data, lack of reliable information about the vaccination programme creates a perfect storm for advertisers. Ryanair cannot be unique in taking advantage of this storm, and the Advertising Standards Authority may have underestimated, in their condemnation of the airline’s marketing ploy, the intelligence of the general public to separate the real from the aspirational.

With thanks to Stuart Helmer and Aysha Kaplankiran of CMS for their excellent summary of the ASA ruling.


  1. johnlowrie says:

    Yes, John point taken. The term “Skype” families was coined to describe families separated due to very strict immigration policies, still an element of the Home Office’s hostile environment policy that of course was vividly exposed by the “Windrush” scandal. Indeed it was a case of “There but for the Grace of God goes I” for my former partner and her St Helenian compatriots if we had not persuaded Tony Blair’s government to restore their full British citizenship. Having said that “Saints” are still treated as second-class citizens. The “100 men” they sent as a loyal tiny colony after WWII to help rebuild the Mother Country still does not count an iota in our grudging support to their island. Today we also see the UK’s lack of compassion in the way we deal with refugees – where once we led the world in giving both moral and practical help. It’s ironic that former Permanent Secretary of DfID and outgoing UN Humanitarian Co-ordinator Mark Lowcock knows these issues better than most but can no longer act.

  2. @johnlowrie

    You raised a good point I had it in mind myself. My second wife was South African, but she passed away in 2006. Had she not, this change to the world we have lived to would have caused us problems that engaged our Convention rights too.

    I met my present wife in 2015 and we married in 2019. She is Romanian. Plans we made in good faith as to how we were going to arrange our lives, mostly together, in two different countries, but sometimes apart as we attended to separate duties to be available to our family members, have been disrupted. There is now talk that suggests that, far from there being any light at the end of the tunnel, the worst is yet to come of that disruption.

    My present wife and I were talking today about the effect of travel bans on migrant workers, some of whom are parents who have left children in the care of grandparents overseas.

    If HMG has given any thought to the trouble it is causing, by deluding itself that a human government can fight a virus and win by virtually tearing up the ECHR, then it has yet to acknowledge this. During any other time in history, this coronavirus would harldy have been noticed. Is it any wonder that there are conspiracy theories? How else is it possible to make sense of the apparent overreaction to something as mundane as the official narrative would have us to believe this new virus is?

  3. johnlowrie says:

    For most of the general puiblc their concern is with future travel plans for holidays and important though they are, for others – and not just business people – their travel is more important. It also touches upon basic human rights that of course traverse international borders. I have in mind people like my Cambodian wife and I. Although we are “stuck” in the UK now, equally like similar couples, we could have been stuck in Cambodia. One way or another one partner or the other is denied seeing family. So far no attention has been paid to people like us. We were among the first to argue for the UK adopting stricter entry requirements. Those announced today by the UK are similar to ones imposed by Cambodia, Australia, New Zealand etc far earlier in the spread of the pandemic. They are appropriate. However provisions and special assistance should be given especially where as in our case one partner is under pressure from the Home Office to leave due to overstaying. Our successive travel bookings since May last year have been thwarted and now vast extra charges are added for flights, tests, compulsory quarantine hotel-stays and insurance.

Welcome to the UKHRB

This blog is run by 1 Crown Office Row barristers' chambers. Subscribe for free updates here. The blog's editorial team is:
Commissioning Editor: Jonathan Metzer
Editorial Team: Rosalind English
Angus McCullough QC David Hart QC
Martin Downs
Jim Duffy

Free email updates

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog for free and receive weekly notifications of new posts by email.




This blog is maintained for information purposes only. It is not intended to be a source of legal advice and must not be relied upon as such. Blog posts reflect the views and opinions of their individual authors, not of chambers as a whole.

Our privacy policy can be found on our ‘subscribe’ page or by clicking here.


Aarhus Abortion Abu Qatada Abuse Access to justice adoption ALBA Al Qaeda animal rights anonymity Article 1 Protocol 1 Article 2 article 3 Article 4 article 5 Article 6 Article 8 Article 9 article 10 Article 11 article 13 Article 14 Artificial Intelligence Asbestos assisted suicide asylum Australia autism benefits Bill of Rights biotechnology blogging Bloody Sunday brexit Bribery Catholicism Chagos Islanders Children children's rights China christianity citizenship civil liberties campaigners climate change clinical negligence Coercion common law confidentiality consent conservation constitution contempt of court Control orders Copyright coronavirus Coroners costs Court of Protection crime Cybersecurity Damages data protection death penalty defamation deportation deprivation of liberty Detention disability disclosure Discrimination disease divorce DNA domestic violence duty of care ECHR ECtHR Education election Employment Environment Equality Act Ethiopia EU EU Charter of Fundamental Rights EU costs EU law European Court of Justice evidence extradition extraordinary rendition Family Fertility FGM Finance foreign criminals foreign office France freedom of assembly Freedom of Expression freedom of information freedom of speech Gay marriage Gaza genetics Germany Google Grenfell Health HIV home office Housing HRLA human rights Human Rights Act human rights news Huntington's Disease immigration India Indonesia injunction Inquests international law internet Inuit Iran Iraq Ireland Islam Israel Italy IVF Japan Judaism judicial review jury trial JUSTICE Justice and Security Bill Law Pod UK legal aid Leveson Inquiry LGBTQ Rights liability Libel Liberty Libya Lithuania local authorities marriage mental capacity Mental Health military Ministry of Justice modern slavery music Muslim nationality national security NHS Northern Ireland nuclear challenges Obituary ouster clauses parental rights parliamentary expenses scandal patents Pensions Personal Injury Piracy Plagiarism planning Poland Police Politics pollution press Prisoners Prisons privacy Professional Discipline Property proportionality Protection of Freedoms Bill Protest Public/Private public access public authorities public inquiries rehabilitation Reith Lectures Religion RightsInfo right to die right to family life Right to Privacy right to swim riots Roma Romania Round Up Royals Russia Saudi Arabia Scotland secrecy secret justice sexual offence Sikhism Smoking social media South Africa Spain special advocates Sports Standing statelessness stop and search Strasbourg Supreme Court Supreme Court of Canada surrogacy surveillance Syria Tax technology Terrorism tort Torture travel treaty TTIP Turkey UK Ukraine USA US Supreme Court vicarious liability Wales War Crimes Wars Welfare Western Sahara Whistleblowing Wikileaks wind farms WomenInLaw YearInReview Zimbabwe
%d bloggers like this: