1. Upheld

The ASA understood that the advertisers maintained that Martin Lynch of ML&S, who sold and distributed a range of products, including desktop radars, had endorsed the claim that RadarBox was the “leader”, but also noted that we had not seen any documentation to support the ML&S endorsement. We considered that “leading” claims were usually interpreted to mean that the product was the best-selling in its field, but noted that, in this case, the claim was placed in the context of claims about the features and improvements offered by the product, such as “AirNav RadarBox Pro becomes the leader in ‘Desktop Radar’ with its world 2D map system. Upgrade to the 3D Google Map version and you get so much realism & map detail, it is breathtaking” and considered that most readers would interpret the claim “the leader in Desktop Radar” to mean that the RadarBox-3D was the leader in terms of technological innovation.

Although we noted that the advertisers maintained that a distributor had claimed that RadarBox was becoming the leader, over a competitor, we noted that we had not seen supporting evidence for that claim or seen any other documentation setting out how the RadarBox-3D was the leader in terms of technological innovation. We therefore concluded that the ad was misleading.

On that point, the ad breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1, 3.3 (Misleading advertising) and 3.7 (Substantiation).

2. Upheld

We noted that the full claim, in context, was “Both systems are now being used by the BBC, the Canadian Space Authorities and airlines, for monitoring incoming and outgoing traffic”. We understood that AirNav had been credited as a contributor of footage on a BBC TV series which had been broadcast in 2008, but did not consider that that was clear from the claim and context and considered that some readers might understand that the BBC had purchased the product and were using it on a continuous basis.

Because we had not received supporting evidence to show it was being used on a continuous basis, as the ad implied, we concluded that the claim was misleading.

On that point, the ad breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1, 3.3 (Misleading advertising) and 3.7 (Substantiation).

3. Upheld

We considered that the claim “Now being used by the Canadian Space Authorities” suggested that the RadarBox was currently being used by the Canadian Space Agency (CSA) or an affiliated agency or body working directly for the CSA. We understood that the advertisers had provided material for a university program in 2009, but noted we had not seen information that showed how that project was intregral to the work of the CSA or that the product in question was currently being used by the CSA. We therefore considered that the claim was misleading.

On that point, the ad breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1, 3.3 (Misleading advertising) and 3.7 (Substantiation).

4. Not upheld

We understood that some work on the 787 Dreamliner project had been contracted to Goodrich by Boeing and understood that the RadarBox was being used by Goodrich for that Boeing project. We therefore considered that, because the product had been used for a Boeing project, albeit via a contractor, the claim “Boeing adapted it for their Dream Liner project" was unlikely to mislead. We also understood that the project had begun in the summer of 2010. We considered that work in a field such as air industry innovation and development was not generally short-term work, that many projects were likely to take some time to complete and could be ongoing for a long period of time. Therefore, in the context of a claim related to air industry development, we did not consider that it was misleading to state that work which had taken place 12 months previously was “recent”. We therefore concluded that the claim "Recently Boeing adapted it for their Dream Liner project" was not misleading.

On that point, we investigated the ad under CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1, 3.3 (Misleading advertising) and 3.7 (Substantiation), but did not find it in breach.