ASA Adjudication on Hydrotec (UK) Ltd

Ad

A trade press ad, for a lime scale prevention device, was headlined "Thinking about limescale prevention?". Text underneath stated "The Hydromag from Hydrotec No chemicals, No maintenance, Just totally effective electromagnetic technology. Fit for the life of the building ...".

Issue

Lifescience Products Ltd challenged whether Hydrotec could substantiate the claims:

1. "Just totally effective electromagnetic technology", because they believed the product had not passed a laboratory test of efficacy;

2. "No maintenance", because they believed Hydrotec had previously offered maintenance contracts for the product; and

3. "Fit for the life of the building", because they believed the product had a useful life of less than 30 years.

CAP Code (Edition 11)

Response

1. Hydrotec said they did not have a German Deutsche Vereinigung des Gas-und Wasserfaches e.V. (DVGW) test certificate, the test referred to by the complainant, because they had never applied for one. They pointed out that the ad made no reference to the test certificate and argued that the claim "totally effective" did not imply that they had passed this test. Hydrotec sent the product information file for the Hydromag which detailed how it worked and included case studies of the product. They also sent a customer testimonial letter which stated the customer had been very happy with the product and wanted to use it again. They sent a copy of a 1993 doctoral thesis which was based on experiments on the Hydromag.

Hydrotec said they were confident in the efficacy of the Hydromag at preventing limescale build up but accepted that factors beyond their control may have an effect on the efficacy and, for that reason, they agreed to remove the claim "totally effective".

2. Hydrotec asserted that, once installed, the Hydromag was completely maintenance free; it had no moving parts and was not subject to corrosion or deterioration. They said there was no planned replacement of any serviceable items such as gaskets, washers or oils.  They said they offered contracts to extend the warranty on the unit and, if taken up, an annual inspection might take place. They said it was possible that unplanned failure of the system could occur, for example, if the unit had been applied incorrectly or incompletely, and they believed an annual inspection visit was advisable when extending warranties. They said, however, that failure of the system for these reasons did not constitute servicing or maintenance of the unit itself and that no maintenance took place or was required to keep the unit performing effectively.

3. Hydrotec pointed out that the ad appeared in a trade magazine. They believed the claim "the life of the building" could be seen to refer to the length of a commercial leasehold, which could be between 15 and 30 years. They believed the Hydromag was sufficiently durable to last that long and to outlast the other key elements of a building's infrastructure. They argued that readers would not, as the complainant had suggested, understand the claim to imply that the product would last hundreds of years.

Hydrotec believed it was fair to say that Hydromag would out-live any other component in the heating system, such as the pipes or boiler.  Hydrotec asserted that all Hydromags consisted of a solid iron casting and were Teflon coated internally and externally to ensure corrosion resistance. They asserted that they could not see any reason why the unit would not be functional for the life of a building in terms of how long it would stand. They said they had installed the first Hydromags in the UK in 1988, 19 years ago, and had not replaced any due to old age; they had also installed them in Germany since 1985, 22 years ago, and had not replaced any units due to old age.

Hydrotec also argued that the 'life' of a building relied on the flow of water through it and that they could have the 'life' sucked out of them due to scaling and the inability to distribute water efficiently which could lead to high costs of operation, maintenance and fuel inefficiency. They said this could be another interpretation of the claim "Fit for the life of the building".

Assessment

1. Upheld

The ASA sent the doctoral thesis to an expert. The expert said, in his view, the thesis showed that the Hydromag could limit the build-up of limescale in certain conditions; the evidence did not show, however, that it was 100% effective at preventing limescale build-up.

We noted Hydrotec had not applied for the DVGW test and that the ad made no mention of the test. We understood that it was not a requirement that limescale prevention devices passed the DVGW test to operate in the UK. We agreed with Hydrotec that the claim "totally effective" did not imply they had passed this test. We did, however, consider that when used in conjunction with the question "Thinking about limescale prevention?" it implied the Hydromag was 100% effective at preventing limescale build-up.  We noted the product file, testimonial and doctoral thesis but considered that we had not seen evidence to show that the Hydromag was 100% effective at preventing limescale build-up and concluded therefore that the absolute claim to prevent limescale was likely to mislead. We welcomed Hydrotec's willingness to remove the claim "totally effective".

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

2. Not upheld

We considered that readers were likely to interpret the claim "No maintenance" to mean, if functioning correctly, the Hydromag would not require cleaning or replacement of parts to ensure regular daily operation. We noted it was possible that something unexpected could go wrong with the system if the Hydromag had not been fitted correctly or completely and that, in those cases, Hydrotec would look at the problem. We considered however, that such unexpected problems would be regarded as repair, not maintenance, and concluded that the claim was unlikely to mislead.

On this point, we investigated the ad under CAP Code clauses 3.1 (Substantiation) and 7.1 (Truthfulness) but did not find it in breach.

3. Not upheld

We considered that readers were likely to interpret the claim "Fit for the life of the building" to mean that the Hydromag would last as long as the other major components of the infrastructure, particularly the pipework, not that the product would last as long as a building stood, which we understood could be for hundreds of years. We noted, in the last 22 years, Hydrotec had never replaced the Hydromag due to old age.  Because we understood that the Hydromag would last as long as the other major components of a buildings infrastructure, we considered that the claim was unlikely to mislead.

On this point, we investigated the ad under CAP Code clause 7.1 (Truthfulness) but did not find it in breach.

Action

The ad must not appear again in its current form.  We told Hydrotec to remove the claim "Just totally effective electromagnetic technology" and advised them to seek advice from the CAP Copy Advice team before advertising in future.

Adjudication of the ASA Council (Non-broadcast)