ASA Adjudication on News International Ltd

Ad

An ad in The Times was headed "THE TIMES OFFERS DIRECT - You'll never wash windows again - only £12.99 FREE p&p." It showed the product in a spray container. Body copy stated "Window Clear is the one year application treatment perfect for windows, mirrors, windscreens, tiles and glass doors - Just one application and they're protected from dirt, grime, sleet, snow, insects and bird droppings for one year. Treated glass also rejects 95% of the suns harmful rays ending fading curtains, carpets and upholstery. Window Clear is quick and easy to apply, there are so many ways to use this amazing product, both inside and out. To order call 0870 XXX XXXX quoting XXXXX. To order by post, send a cheque or postal order (name and address on the back) in pounds sterling made payable to ... " The address for orders by post followed.

Issue

A reader, who had purchased and used the product, challenged the efficacy claims made for it in the claims "You'll never wash windows again ... Window clear is the one year application treatment perfect for windows, mirrors, windscreens, tiles and glass doors - Just one application and they're protected from dirt, grime, sleet, snow, insects and bird droppings for one year."

CAP Code (Edition 11)

Response

News International supplied two documents from the suppliers of the product that they believed substantiated the claims relating to the longevity and efficacy of the product. News International said the product had been sold for a number of years and had a low return rate, which they believed indicated customers were satisfied and that the product performed in the way claimed. They said they also received repeat orders.

The documentation from the supplier consisted of a fax and a letter. The fax asserted that the product filtered up to 95% of UV-B radiation, which they said was based on information from the EMPA Materials Science and Technology of Switzerland. The letter stated that the product had been tested and had been found to be effective for one year with one application. The letter stated that, when cleaning the window, the product coated it with a thin layer of protective film which repelled dirt and which made it difficult for dust to stick to and stay on the window.

Assessment

Upheld

The ASA noted the explanations provided by News International and the supplier. We noted they did not supply test results, however, to demonstrate the efficacy of the product in UK weather situations. We noted the assertions that the product had been sold for some time; had a low return rate and that repeat orders were received, but did not consider those points demonstrated the efficacy of the product in the absence of suitable test results.

We considered News International had not provided suitable documentary evidence to prove the claims.

The ad breached CAP Code clauses 3.1 (Substantiation) and 7.1 (Truthfulness).

Action

We told News International not to repeat the claims unless they had suitable documentary evidence to support them.

Adjudication of the ASA Council (Non-broadcast)