ASA Adjudication on Autoglass Ltd

Ad

A TV ad, for a windscreen repair service, showed a windscreen chip being repaired. A man said “If you call Autoglass as soon as a chip appears, we can come to you and usually repair the windscreen without replacing it. We inject our special resin and in just 30 minutes the result is almost invisible and the windscreen is strong again …”. The repair made the chip virtually invisible.

Issue

The complainant challenged whether the ad was misleading, because he did not believe that such repairs could make windscreen chips "almost invisible".

BCAP TV Code

Response

Autoglass pointed out that the ad claimed that the result of the repair process was "almost invisible" chips. They believed that such qualification left scope for a subjective assessment of the effectiveness of their product. For instance, they pointed out that the visibility of the chip after repair was highly dependent upon the distance from which it was viewed. Autoglass also sent several before and after pictures, along with details of the repair process and actual samples of repaired chips to demonstrate the effectiveness of the product.

Autoglass believed that the ad made clear how the process and the materials used worked. They also maintained that the ads depiction of the repair was representative of normal results. They acknowledged that the process was subject to some refraction of light as it passed from the glass of the windshield into the resin. They pointed out however that they had designed the resin with a refractive index very similar to that of typical windscreen glass to minimise the noticeable difference. Autoglass also said they had commissioned research into the visibility of their repairs. They pointed out that they had been certificated by the British Standards Institute (BSI) and that the process passed the requirements for the MoT test carried out on all vehicles in the UK.  The BSI test report showed the windscreen repair resin had passed the test that the repaired area should not show any loss of transparency or any discoloration. Clearcast believed that the evidence demonstrated that Autoglass had produced an effective product, which matched the required standards of the relevant bodies.  Furthermore, they had qualified their claim to ensure that they did not exaggerate how well the product worked. They were satisfied that the claim "almost invisible" fairly reflected the performance of the product.  Clearcast said they requested that Autoglass provide them with before and after samples of the repair process along with technical information supporting the claim. They said some refraction of light was inevitable due to the variety of ways a windscreen could be constructed and the resin not having the same refractive index as all windscreens. They pointed out, however, that the quality of Autoglass repairs had been verified by the BSI and was in line with MoT test guidelines.

Assessment

Not upheld

The ASA noted the technical information sent by Autoglass demonstrated that their repair process conformed to established standards and considered that the samples provided, along with the before and after photographs, supported their view that the claim was representative of the result. We noted the visuals in the ad showed a small mark left on the windscreen after the repair had been carried out. We also noted the claim was qualified by the term "almost" and considered that it was unlikely to lead consumers to believe that chips would never be visible at all after repair. Furthermore, we considered that the term "almost invisible" was, to a degree, subjective and that viewers were likely to understand that the results of the repair process would not be uniform. We noted the various circumstances that could result in a repaired chip being more readily visible, for instance, the size of the chip being repaired.

Because we considered that Autoglass had provided evidence to demonstrate that the typical result of their repair process was low visibility of chips and because the word "almost" and visuals sufficiently qualified the "invisible" claim, we concluded that the ad was unlikely to mislead.

We investigated the ad under CAP (Broadcast) TV Advertising Standards Code rules 5.1.1 and 5.1.2 (Misleading advertising), 5.2.1 (Evidence) and 5.2.2 (Implications) but did not find it in breach.

Action

No further action necessary.

Adjudication of the ASA Council (Broadcast)