Upheld

The ASA took expert advice. We understood that the revised technical description could not operate in the way described in the ad and backing technical description, and that they contained several contradictions. For example, the description stated that the product relied on magnetic fields to work, but it also stated that it was connected in parallel to the system supply, which we understood meant it would draw only a small current with a negligible magnetic field. We also understood that if the product could produce non-negligible magnetic fields then that would raise the power factor, which was contradictory to a statement on Blue Carbon's website that it would not.

We noted the results of the Austrian laboratory testing showed energy savings of around 5% when boiling water. However, we noted that several tests had been carried out, and while the energy consumed was less with the product attached in some cases, the energy consumed was more in others. We considered that meant the 5% finding could be due to experimental error, and that the variation in test results meant the results could only be considered inconclusive.

We also noted that while patents had been filed in several territories including Australia, China and Korea, the International Patent Documentation Centre record showed that no patent had been granted for the product.

Because the descriptions for how the product worked had no scientific basis, and because the case studies had not proven that the product could generate energy savings, we considered the claims had not been substantiated and concluded that the ad was misleading.

The ad breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1 (Misleading advertising) and 3.7 (Substantiation).