ASA Adjudication on Easylife Group Ltd
Easylife Group Ltd
11-13 King's Terrace
London
NW1 0JP
Express Newspapers plc
Northern and Shell Building
10 Lower Thames Street
London
EC3R 6HB
Date:
21 February 2007
Media:
National press
Sector:
Household
Number of complaints:
1
Complaint Ref:
12232
Ad
An ad, for ProFormula, in The Daily Express Reader Offers supplement was headlined “Fast and effective scratch remover”. The text stated “This hi-tech product removes rust and repairs scratches in paint, chrome and enamel without hours of sanding, priming or repainting”. Two photographs showed car paintwork. The photo entitled "Scratched" showed scratches that could not be seen in the second photo, entitled "Repaired".
Issue
The complainant, who purchased the product, objected that the ad was misleading because ProFormula did not remove scratches on his car or on other materials.
CAP Code (Edition 11)
Response
Easylife sent a letter from their supplier which stated that the raw materials in the product were selected because of their surface finish improving characteristics. They said it was particularly suitable for fine scratches on car paint finishes where the customer wanted to improve the visual apprearance of the affected area. The supplier also stated that, if applied correctly, the product worked by affecting the surface finish characteristics without any heavy abrasion to the painted surface. They pointed out that the formulation had been sold for several years to thousands of satisfied customers.
Easylife also sent a Technical Data Information Sheet from their supplier. The product description stated that it contained organic micro crystals which helped erase the sharp edges caused by scratches and restore the original lustre, and that a combination of binders and resins created a refractive action which helped improve the appearance of scratches and in some cases made them invisible. It also stated that although on some surfaces only improvements would be seen, the product was an ideal pre-sale paint finishing material or complement to good quality car polish. The Data Information Sheet described a test where the product was applied to various old and modern vehicle paint finishes in order to establish its ability to remove hairline scratches from the paint layer only. The product was applied to 11 different vehicles and the surface lightly buffed with a cloth. Results were scored from 1 to 10: 1 being "very poor" and 10 "excellent". The average result was 6.91, rated as "fair to good". The test concluded that the product showed a marked improvement in all cases, with non-lacquered substrates showing the best results, that the application method was critical and that in a number of cases the scratch was rendered invisible except on very close inspection.
Easylife gave their assurance that they would obtain advice from the CAP Copy Advice team when preparing future ads.
The Daily Express said they would not run the ad until they had heard the ASA's verdict.
Assessment
Upheld
The ASA noted the ad was headlined "Scratch Remover" and text stated "rub the paste into the scratch with a dry cloth and wipe away ... leaving a colour-matched, sealed and coated surface in minutes". We also noted scratches were not visible in the "Repaired" photo. We acknowledged that Easylife had provided documentation from the supplier describing the action of the product and tests conducted using it. We noted, however, the test did not specify by whom the trial had been conducted and how the results had been evaluated. We considered that the test results did not show conclusively that the product worked as claimed because only its ability to remove hairline scratches was tested and even that was not shown to produce excellent results on all surfaces.
We also noted we had previously received complaints about scratch removing products called "Pro Formula" and "Proformula" and had upheld those due to lack of evidence that the product removed scratches as claimed. We considered that in combination with the photo showing no scratches, the claim "Scratch Remover" in the present ad exaggerated the results the product was likely to achieve. We concluded that the ad was misleading.
The ad breached CAP Code clauses 3.1 (Substantiation) and 7.1 (Truthfulness).
Action
We told Easylife not to repeat the ad in its current form and welcomed their assurance that they would consult the CAP Copy Advice team for future marketing communications.
Adjudication of the ASA Council (Non-broadcast)