ASA Adjudication on Line-X Protective Coatings Ltd

Ad

Two magazine ads and a leaflet for Line-X Protective Coatings.

a. The first magazine ad was headed "BACK TO THE FUTURE" and stated "Line-X is the world's leading spray-on truck bedliner".

b. the second magazine ad was headed "In the three seconds it takes to read this headline... LINE-X WILL BE DRY" and stated "LINE-X is the revolutionary spray-on protective coating designed for vans pick-up trucks - and a multitude of other uses. As well as lining the world, it's now lining the pockets of entrepreneurs along the way! ... LINE-X is 'foodsafe' environmentally friendly and contains NO CFCs or VOCs. It is totally solvent free ... take advantage of this fantastic opportunity to become involved in a multi-million pound industry".

c. the leaflet was headed "LINE-X gives you total protection for life!" and stated "With over 2 million bedliners sprayed, LINE-X has become the standard equipment for many business and private customers alike ... Environmentally safe: LINE-X is environmentally friendly because it's 100% solid with no V.O.C's or C.F.C's. LINE-X is also solvent free."

Issue

European Polymer Products Group Ltd challenged whether the claim:

1. "environmentally friendly" in ads (b) and (c) could be substantiated and whether it was misleading; and

2. "the world's leading spray-on truck bedliner" in ad (a), "lining the world" and "multi-million pound industry" in ad (b) and "over 2 million bedliners sprayed" in ad (c) were misleading, because they believed Line-X was an independent franchise with no connection to the Line-X US company on which the claims were based.

CAP Code (Edition 11)

Response

1. Line-X Protective Coatings Ltd (LPC) said they had used the term "environmentally friendly" because the product contained no volatile organic compounds (VOCs), chloroflurocarbons (CFCs) or solvents.  They pointed out they had qualified the claim and that the use of the word "because" emphasised the elements of the product that were environmentally friendly.  They believed there was no official definition for the term "environmentally friendly" and therefore their qualification of the claim was sufficient.  However, LPC said they would remove the claim if it was considered in breach of the Code.

2. LPC said Line-X was a trade named branded product.  They said there was no mention of their company name in the claims the complainant had highlighted and the ads clearly referred to the Line-X product.  They believed the ads would not give the impression that the claims referred to the company rather than to the Line-X product.

Assessment

1. Upheld

The ASA noted LPC had used the claim "environmentally friendly", because the Line-X product contained no VOCs, CFCs or solvents and they had included a reference to that in the ads.  However, we considered that readers were likely to understand from the claim "Line-X is environmentally friendly" that the product had little or no impact on the environment.  We noted LPC had not provided any evidence to demonstrate the overall environmental impact of the product and we therefore considered that the claim implied the product caused less damage to the environment than appeared to be the case.  We concluded that the claim "environmentally friendly" was misleading and unsubstantiated.

On this point, ads (b) and (c) breached CAP Code clauses 7.1 (Truthfulness), 49.1 and 49.2 (Environmental claims).

2. Not upheld

We noted LPC were an independently owned master dealership that had no connection with the Line-X USA company, other than that they sold the Line-X branded product.  We noted LPC had intended the claims such as "the world's leading spray-on truck liner", to refer to the product rather than their company.  We noted the ads referred to "Line-X" and did not directly refer to the LPC company.  We considered that readers were likely to understand that the claims referred only to the product rather than the UK dealership.  We concluded that the ads were unlikely to mislead.

On this point, we investigated the ads under CAP Code clauses 7.1 (Truthfulness) but did not find them in breach.

Action

We welcomed Line-X's assurance that they would not repeat the claim "environmentally friendly".  We advised them to contact the CAP Copy Advice team for help with their future advertising.

Adjudication of the ASA Council (Non-broadcast)