ASA Adjudication on Kia Motors (UK) Ltd

Ad

A national press, TV and radio ad, for Kia Motors:

a. The press ad stated “ONE DAY ALL CARS MAY COME WITH A 7 YEAR WARRANTY UNTIL THEN, IT’S JUST OURS … Out of all the car companies in Europe, Kia is the only one confident enough in its build quality to back every single one of its cars with an industry-leading, full manufacturer’s, 7 year warranty. If you’re intrigued to find out why that is, visit us at [their website address] … Because a longer warranty is a better warranty …”. Small print stated “Fuel consumption Figures for the Kia Range are: 25.2 (11.2) - 601(4.7), Extra Urban: 409 (6.9) - 72.4 (3.9), Combed 33.2 (8.5) - 67.3 (4.2) CO2: 210-110 g/km. 7 year/100,000 mile warranty. Visit [their website address] or see your local dealer for full warranty terms and conditions”.

b. The TV ad stated in voice-over “… at Kia, all our cars now come with a seven year warranty instead of three. Because a longer warranty is a better warranty”. On-screen text stated “7 year / 100,000 mile warranty. Terms and conditions apply”.

c. The radio ad stated "... Who knows what the next seven years will bring, but one thing's for sure. With an industry-leading seven year warranty across the range, a new Kia will give you worry-free motoring until 2017. For more information about Kia's seven year warranty and the great offers at your local dealer, visit [their website address] now. Kia, home of the seven year warranty. Terms and conditions apply".

Issue

Warranty Direct Ltd challenged whether ads (a) and (b) were misleading, because:

1. ad (b) failed to give sufficient prominence to the 100,000-mile limit;

2. the warranty cover period varied for different items, such as batteries and air conditioning; and

3. the liability of Kia under the warranty was limited solely to the repair or replacement of original parts defective in material or workmanship and did not relate to the wearing of parts through general use.

A member of the public challenged whether:

4. ad (c) was misleading, because it failed to state that the seven-year warranty was subject to a 100,000 mile maximum limit.

CAP Code (Edition 11)

BCAP TV Code

BCAP Radio Code

Response

1. Kia Motors (UK) Ltd (Kia) believed the on-screen text was displayed with sufficient prominence and was in line with other manufacturers who included warranty information in their ads. They said they understood from Clearcast that the prominence requirements of on-screen text had been met.

Clearcast said that, although TV ad (b) enticed the viewer with the seven-year warranty, it clearly indicated the mileage restriction.

2. Kia acknowledged that the seven year warranty did not cover every aspect of the vehicle but said none of the exclusions were mechanical and thereby essential to the continued operation of the car. They said they had made an effort not to exaggerate the claims for the warranty and had therefore stated in their ads that terms and conditions applied.

Clearcast said TV ad (b) made it clear that terms and conditions applied.

3. Kia said they understood that no other vehicle manufacturer would warranty against "wear and tear" and that Kia had in place conditions that were similar, if not identical, to those offered by the car market as a whole.

Clearcast said that wear and tear was rarely, if ever, covered in the car market and that this exemption was a common condition of car manufacturer warranties.

4. Kia said they understood that the caveat "terms and conditions apply" was appropriate and sufficient for the radio ad and explained that they had not included the reference to the mileage limitation.

The RACC believed the 100,000-mile limit only applied to the last four years of the seven-year warranty period, equating to 25,000 maximum miles driving per annum during those four years. They said this was in excess of the UKs average mileage of around 10,000 miles per annum and that it was therefore unlikely that the mileage restriction would affect most consumers. The RACC also said that because the 100,000 mileage restriction was generous, they did not consider that it needed to be specifically referred to in the radio ad which was, by its nature, restricted by time and that they believed the statement "for more information about Kias seven-year warranty ... visit [their website] now" was sufficient to indicate that conditions applied to the offer and that listeners could obtain that information from the website.

Assessment

1. Upheld

The ASA noted, although the mileage limit was included in the final frames of the ad underneath the central image of the Kia logo, this information was not on-screen during the visual and voice-over description of the warranty. We subsequently considered that the general impression of the ad, and repeated references to the number seven, was that the warranty would last for seven years regardless of miles driven. We considered that the 100,000 mileage limit was a significant condition of the seven year warranty and as such should have appeared in the main section of the ad. We concluded the mileage limit was not displayed with sufficient clarity and prominence and concluded that TV ad (b) was therefore likely to mislead.

On this point, TV ad (b) breached CAP (Broadcast) TV Advertising Standard rules 5.1.1 (Misleading advertising) and 5.2.2 (Misleading advertising - implications).

2. Upheld

We understood the various cover periods for different terms only applied to non-mechanical items in the car. However, we considered that without qualification, most consumers would assume that all of the items that were covered by the warranty, would be covered for the same period. We considered that these exclusions were not adequately covered by the invitation in press ad (a) to visit the Kia website, or, by the on-screen text in TV ad (b) which stated "terms and conditions apply". We concluded that press ad (a) and TV ad (b) were likely to mislead.

On this point, press ad (a) breached CAP Code clause 3.1 (Substantiation), 7.1 (Truthfulness) and 19.1 (Other comparisons) and CAP (Broadcast) TV Advertising Standard rules 5.1.1 (Misleading advertising) and 5.2.2 (Misleading advertising - implications).

3. Not upheld

We understood that wear and tear was damage which naturally and inevitably occurred as a result of normal wear or ageing and that the phrase was used in a legal context for the purpose of warranties. We considered that most consumers would expect car parts to deteriorate as a result of time and mileage and would not expect any wear and tear to be covered by a manufacturers warranty. We also understood that most car manufacturers warranties did not cover wear and tear as standard. Although we understood that some independent car warranties did cover wear and tear in some of their policies, we considered that consumers would understand that press ad (a) and TV ad (b) were making a comparison with other car manufacturers warranties and not those of independent companies specialising in warranties. We concluded that the ad was unlikely to mislead.

On this point, we considered press ad (a) under CAP Code clause 3.1 (Substantiation), 7.1 (Truthfulness) and 19.1 (Other comparisons) but did not find it in breach.

We considered TV ad (b) under CAP (Broadcast) TV Advertising Standard rules 5.1.1 (Misleading advertising) and 5.2.2 (Misleading advertising - implications) but did not find it in breach.

4. Upheld

We acknowledged that the first three years of the warranty had unlimited mileage. However, we noted consumers who exceeded the 100,000-mile limit during the first three years of that warranty would not be covered for the following four years because the 100,000 limit for the whole seven years had already been exceeded. We understood that, when the 100,000-mile limit was applied across the full seven years of the warranty, this equated to just over 14,285 miles per year. Although we understood this exceeded the average annual mileage, we considered that some drivers could reach the total 100,000 limit over seven-years. We also considered that because seven year warranties were not typical within the industry, and Kia Motors were promoting their vehicles specifically by reference to the warranty, the 100,000 mileage restriction was a significant condition of this warranty and as such should have been made clear in the ad. Because that information was omitted, we concluded that radio ad (c) was likely to mislead.

On this point, radio ad (c) breached CAP Broadcast (Radio) Code section 2 rule 3.1 (Misleadingness).

Action

The ads should not appear again in their current form. We told Kia to ensure that future ads clearly stated that exclusions and restrictions, including the mileage limit, applied to the seven-year warranty.

Adjudication of the ASA Council (Broadcast)

Adjudication of the ASA Council (Non-broadcast)