ASA Adjudication on Air Ion Technologies Ltd

Ad

A magazine ad, for Myairzone an air purifier, claimed “Clears the air of pollutants, dust mites, cold and flu bugs, fungal spores, pet and animal dander, smoke, moulds … What our customers say: From our 2006 customer survey, Myairzone is used for asthma, anxiety, bronchitis, hayfever, headaches, migraines, infection avoidance, odour removal, pet allergy, skin conditions, deepens sleep, smoke clearance, driving, working, dust mite allergy and mould … “.

Issue

1. The complainant challenged the efficacy of the product.

2. The ASA challenged whether the claim "What our customers say: From our 2006 customer survey, Myairzone is used for asthma, anxiety, bronchitis ... ", misleadingly implied that the device could relieve, or treat, the symptoms of the listed conditions.

CAP Code (Edition 11)

Response

Air Ion Technologies (Air Ion) explained that the purpose of the product was to clean the air in close proximity to the user; they said they believed it was analogous to a water purifier. They said the process had been tested in independent trials by the Workplace Environment Science & Technology Research Association (WESTRA) and the Universities of Surrey, Leeds, Southampton and Reading and its ability to clear the air of various particles had been demonstrated by WESTRA regularly by using a particle counter at clients' premises. They also claimed that the product cleared the air of various micro-organisms and said this had been demonstrated by researchers at Leeds and Southampton Universities. They sent a presentation from the Healthy Buildings Symposium in June 2006 and a copy of their customer satisfaction survey as substantiation for the advertised claims. They pointed out that they had a 60-day money back guarantee that allowed purchasers to assess the value of the product for themselves and obtain a full refund, including postage, if they were not satisfied.

Assessment

1. Upheld

The ASA considered that the claim "Clears the air" implied the product removed all airborne allergens. We noted the information Air Ion had supplied as substantiation was a short-term study on the impact of improved air quality on productivity and health in the workplace. Because it did not support the implication that the advertised product removed all pollutants and because it was not designed to be controlled for a placebo effect, we considered that the study was insufficient to support the claim. Furthermore, we noted Air Ion had not provided robust, placebo-controlled clinical studies that showed the product removed allergens from the surrounding air of the user's homes, inside and outside, or for any specific irritant such as animal dander. We concluded that Air Ion's submissions were insufficient to prove the efficacy of the Myairzone.

2. Upheld

We noted the customer satisfaction survey had a very high response rate and, from the graph provided, customers seemed to have enjoyed an improvement in their various symptoms. We nevertheless noted that it was impossible to know from the questionnaire whether any perceived change was directly attributable to the product. We considered that the claim implied the device could relieve, or treat, the symptoms of the listed conditions including the serious medical condition of bronchitis. Because Air Ion had not provided product-specific, clinically controlled trials on sufferers of these conditions to prove the efficacy of the product, we concluded that the claim was misleading. We were also concerned that the references to bronchitis and migraines, serious medical conditions, could discourage consumers from seeking help from a suitably qualified medical practitioner.

On points 1. & 2., the ad breached CAP Code clauses 3.1 (Substantiation), 7.1 (Truthfulness), 50.1 (Scientific substantiation) and 50.3 (Discouragement of essential treatment).

Action

We told Air Ion not to repeat the ad and advised them to consult the CAP Copy Advice team before advertising again.

Adjudication of the ASA Council (Non-broadcast)