ASA Non-broadcast Adjudication: Ecotek Technologies Plc

Complaint

Objection from Kingston Upon Thames Trading Standards department, to a magazine advertisement for an engine cleaning product, headlined "POWER Boost Engine Energizer. Text beneath stated "PowerBoost restores your engine to the manufacturers [sic] specification, maintaining optimum levels of performance and economy. The benefits of PowerBoost can include: More engine power. Crisper acceleration. Better throttle response. Higher top speed. Reduced emissions and improved economy. As well as smoother running & longer engine life. If your car's done over 20,000 miles you need PowerBoost. Never settle for less. NEW PowerBoost De-coking Foam." The complainants challenged the claims:

1. "PowerBoost restores your engine to the manufacturers [sic] specification, maintaining optimum levels of performance and economy";

2. "More engine power";

3. "Crisper acceleration";

4. "Better throttle response";

5. "Higher top speed" and

6. "Reduced emissions".

CAP Code

Adjudication

The advertisers explained that the product was used under pressure to remove excess carbon deposits from combustion engines and that those excess deposits reduced engine efficiency. They pointed out the use of the conditional word "can" in the claim " ... The benefits of PowerBoost can include ... ". The advertisers supplied copies of test data and articles from motoring journals and motoring associations on over 20 vehicles treated with the product; they believed the information independently supported the claims and they pointed out that they had received no complaints by consumers. The advertisers said they accepted that the claim "PowerBoost restores your engine to the manufacturers [sic] specification" could mislead but asserted that "maintaining optimum levels of performance and economy" was true.

1. Complaint upheld

The Authority considered that consumers were likely to interpret the claim "PowerBoost restores your engine to the manufacturers [sic] specification, maintaining optimum levels of performance and economy" as implying the product would improve their engine's internal condition back to factory settings. The Authority took expert advice and understood that, although subjective comments were reported that stated that fuel economy had improved after the product was used, no fuel economy tests had been performed. Because the advertisers had not supplied robust, objective evidence that showed the application of the product returned the condition of engines to factory settings or that fuel economy improved, the Authority concluded that the claim was misleading and told them to delete it in its entirety.

2. Complaint upheld

The Authority took expert advice and understood that the submission showed some vehicles' power output increased after the product was applied, some showed no change and one showed a decrease in power. It understood that the power output tests used in support of the claim were flawed in various ways, such as being improperly controlled or recorded. Because no robust laboratory results were presented, the Authority concluded that the claim was unsupported and told the advertisers to delete it until they held robust evidence to support it.

3, 4 & 5. Complaint upheld

The Authority took expert advice and understood that the submission presented in support of the claims "Crisper acceleration"; "Better throttle response" and "Higher top speed" was based on subjective comments only. Because no robust, objective evidence was submitted in support of the claims, the Authority concluded that the claims were unsupported and told the advertisers to delete them until they held satisfactory evidence to support them.

6. Complaint upheld

The Authority took expert advice and noted the evidence supplied consisted of measurements of carbon monoxide, hydrocarbons and one pair of smoke measurements for a diesel Land Rover using MOT measurement apparatus. It understood that both nitrogen oxides and particulates were legislated emissions and that MOT apparatus was normally used to give a pass or fail result for vehicle's emissions only. The Authority noted the European Directive 98/68/EC contained test procedures, including simulated driving cycles, for the measurement of legislated exhaust emissions. Because the advertisers had not submitted robust evidence following European Directive 98/68/EC for all legislated emissions, the Authority concluded that the claim was misleading and told them to delete it.