ASA Adjudication on Best Direct

Ad

BCAP monitored an infomercial for Cataclean on Best Direct; it claimed “Cataclean can significantly improve the performance of your car, reduce fuel consumption on average by 20%, reduce exhaust emissions by up to a massive 60% increasing the chance of your car passing its MOT. And, if that’s not enough, save you on average £320 in fuel costs per year”. The infomercial made these claims: Cleaner engine: “Cataclean is a fuel additive which cleans the internal integral parts of your engine but also goes into the exhaust stream and cleans your catalytic converter”. “I can quite honestly say hand on my heart that is the only fluid that has ever reduced emissions and cleaned catalytic converters”. Regeneration of Catalyst: “You’re saving money on not having to replace your catalytic converter”. Performance: “It just gives you so much more power”. “Acceleration is remarkably improved”. “It will give a better performance, better acceleration”. Environment: “You’re also helping the environment, the less you pump out of the exhaust, you are helping the environment”.

Issue

BCAP challenged whether Cataclean would:

1. give better performance and better acceleration;

2. reduce fuel consumption by 20% giving average savings of £320 a year;

3. reduce emissions by up to 60%, increase the chance of a car passing an MOT test and help the environment;

4. clean engines and

5. affect a catalytic converter so it did not need replacing.

BCAP TV Code

Response

Best Direct submitted evidence of tests conducted on Cataclean; some were MOT tests, others used standard industry test methods to measure exhaust emissions and fuel consumption using a chassis dynamometer.  

1. No evidence was presented to substantiate the claimed change in engine or vehicle performance.  

2.  No evidence was presented to substantiate a significant change in fuel consumption.  

3. One of the chassis dynamometer tests for Cataclean showed that it had a potentially significant reduction but did not support the claimed 60% reduction in exhaust emissions.  The other chassis dynamometer test was conducted on a car with an allegedly badly functioning three-way catalyst.  

4. No evidence was presented to substantiate the claim that Cataclean cleaned the internal parts of an engine.  

5. Best Direct submitted two tests in support of the claim.

Assessment

BCAP sought expert advice.  The expert advised that, when carrying out tests on engines and vehicles, it was essential that the engine or vehicle was preconditioned in a repeatable manner before establishing a base line.  None of the submitted evidence referred to vehicle preconditioning.  He stated that it was essential to carry out repeat tests to determine the repeatability of the vehicle and therefore the accuracy of the results.  The usual way of doing that was to carry out a repeat reference element: test the vehicle twice without the product, then twice with the product and finally without the product again.  None of the submitted evidence referred to repeat testing. The expert also advised that MOT tests were intended to identify vehicle faults that resulted in high exhaust emissions.  Because they were carried out with no load on the engine, MOT tests were unsuitable for investigating the effects of aftermarket devices on an engines exhaust emissions.  The expert concluded that the MOT test evidence did not reliably show that Cataclean had an effect on exhaust emissions. Best Direct acknowledged that the evidence was inadequate and agreed not to broadcast the infomercial until adequate substantiation was available.

1., 2. & 4. Upheld

The ASA considered that the claims were misleading.

3. Upheld

The expert considered that using a vehicle with a known and apparently unquantified problem was bad practice. The results showed that Cataclean had no beneficial effect on emissions.  The expert noted the evidence did not repeat the decreases in emissions that were demonstrated in the infomercial.  We considered that the claims were misleading.

5. Upheld

The expert advised that catalyst efficiency was established by analysing the exhaust gases entering and exiting the catalyst.  He noted the submitted tests did not use that method.  The expert advised that the product was extremely unlikely to survive the combustion process and reach the exhaust catalyst.  We considered that the claim was misleading.

Action

We concluded that the infomercial breached rules 5.1 (Misleading advertising), 5.2.1 (Evidence), 5.4.4 (Testimonials) and 5.2.6 (Environmental claims) of the CAP (Broadcast) TV Advertising Standards Code and it must not be advertised again without adequate substantiation for each claim it made.

Adjudication of the ASA Council (Broadcast)