ASA Adjudication on Ecotek Technologies plc

Ad

A magazine ad, for the Ecotek CB-26P fuel efficiency device, was headlined “Better Performance Guaranteed! …. OR your Money back!!”. A testimonial attributed to Datron stated “It is clearly established by an analysis of the data that the device improved the performance of all three cars during the test” and a testimonial attributed to Prodrive stated “The addition of the Ecotek CB-26P device to these three vehicles saw a reduction in both fuel consumption and CO2 emissions in all cases”. Text stated “Fit the Ecotek CB26P and GAIN: Crisper Throttle Response, Better Acceleration, Increased Economy + Reduced CO2 Emissions”.

Issue

The complainant challenged whether the following claims were misleading and could be substantiated:

1. "Crisper Throttle Response";

2. "Better Acceleration";

3. "Increased Economy"; and

4. "Reduced CO2 Emissions".

5. The ASA challenged whether the claims in the testimonials from Datron and Prodrive could be substantiated.

CAP Code (Edition 11)

Response

1.-5. Ecotek Technologies plc (Ecotek) provided a report entitled "Ecotek Clean Burn Technology - Test Data and Support Information for the Ecotek CB-26P", which showed the results of driving tests with and without the device, which they believed supported the claims in the ad, as well as additional supporting information to the report and a significant amount of raw test data. They also provided a number of articles from specialist magazines, which reported on and reviewed the device.

Assessment

1. Upheld

The ASA took expert advice. We understood that "Crisper Throttle Response" was likely to mean that the vehicles speed would increase more quickly for a given rate of change of throttle opening, but that the tests submitted as evidence did not look at the effects of the device on throttle response specifically. We noted that two trade articles provided in support of the claim made subjective claims for an engine being more responsive, but because no robust, objective evidence was submitted in support of the claim Throttle Response", we concluded it was likely to mislead.

On this point, the ad breached CAP Code clauses 3.1 (Substantiation), 7.1 (Truthfulness) and 14.3 (Testimonials and endorsements).

2., 3. & 4. Upheld

We understood that the data provided related to tests carried out in 2005 and on 2001-model year cars and that these vehicles were unlikely to be representative of current petrol engines, especially direct injection petrol engines. We also understood that the tests were initially carried out on vehicles without the Ecotek CB26-P device fitted (a baseline test), then on vehicles with the device fitted, but that no follow-up baseline tests were carried out after the second tests. We understood that further baseline tests were necessary to support the claims that the observed results were caused by the device, rather than by changes in the execution of the tests, or in the test vehicles themselves.

Because we understood that the data was not sufficiently robust to substantiate the claims "Better Acceleration", "Increased Economy" and "Reduced CO2 Emissions, we concluded that the ad was misleading on those points.

On this point, the ad breached CAP Code clauses 3.1 (Substantiation), 7.1 (Truthfulness) and 14.3 (Testimonials and endorsements).

5. Upheld

We noted that the testimonials claimed the device caused "a reduction in both fuel consumption and CO2 emissions in all cases" and offered "Crisper Throttle Response", "Better Acceleration", "Increased Economy + Reduced CO2 Emissions". Because we understood that the data provided was not sufficiently robust to substantiate those claims, we concluded we had not seen sufficient objective evidence to support the testimonials.

On this point, the ad breached CAP Code clauses 3.1 (Substantiation), 7.1 (Truthfulness) and 14.3 (Testimonials and endorsements).

Action

The ad must not appear again in its current form.

Adjudication of the ASA Council (Non-broadcast)