The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) is investigating London-based e-bike company Forest for potentially misleading marketing claims.
- Forest allegedly advertises its e-bike services as free for 10 minutes a day but requires payment of unlock and service fees.
- The investigation follows complaints that Forest’s advertising does not fully convey all associated costs.
- Forest claims that all fees are communicated upfront to customers during sign-up and through its app.
- The company emphasises its commitment to affordable zero-emission travel amidst a competitive e-bike rental market.
The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) is currently scrutinising London-based e-bike rental company Forest, which faces allegations of misleading its customers. Reports suggest that Forest, previously known as Human Forest, has been promoting a misleading policy where consumers can access up to ten minutes of free daily e-bike use. Customers have expressed concerns that despite the free ride time, they are still required to pay an unlock fee and a standard service fee of £1.90 per ride, leading to questions about the transparency of these claims.
Forest offers its e-bikes at a rate of 29 pence per minute and promotes the first ten minutes of each ride as free. However, this offer reportedly includes additional charges that are not explicitly visible in the promotional materials. These materials often feature statements like ’10 minutes free daily’ alongside comparisons to competitors such as Lime. The inconsistencies between Forest’s promotional messages and the required payments have resulted in numerous consumer complaints, sparking the ongoing investigation by the ASA.
A spokesperson for Forest asserted that the terms and conditions, including the ‘pay as you go’ basis fees, are clearly shared with users during the registration process and through its mobile application. Forest’s marketing strategy also involves offering bundles that allow users to avoid unlock or daily service fees, starting from as low as £3 for a 30-minute package valid across multiple rides over 24 hours. This approach aims to provide a more cost-effective solution for frequent users and mitigate the cost implications highlighted in their standard promotional offerings.
Founded in 2020 with over £20 million in funds raised, Forest positions itself as a more affordable and environmentally friendly alternative to existing e-bike services like Lime. The company boasts a fleet of zero-emission e-bikes, a distinguishing feature within London’s competitive rental market. Forest’s CEO, Agustin Guilisasti, emphasises the brand’s commitment to economical zero-emission transport in London, claiming that the company has absorbed £11 million in costs to maintain its free ten-minute daily ride initiative since its inception.
Despite the service’s popularity, with over one million registered users reported, there is ongoing public concern regarding the urban clutter caused by shared e-bikes. Some residents and officials in London describe the situation as potentially hazardous, especially for those with disabilities. This has led to calls for better bike parking solutions, and companies like Lime have invested substantially in infrastructure to address these issues.
The investigation into Forest’s advertising practices underscores the complexities of promoting cost-effective services within regulatory frameworks.
