Ad description
Two TV ads, for a mobile phone, were viewed in April 2011. The ads showed the phone being used in different scenarios, which included it being dropped in a nightclub and splashed at a pool party. Text on screen stated "DANCE FLOOR PROOF" and then "POOL PARTY PROOF". The phone also appeared on the pavement next to a broken pot in the aftermath of the pool party. Text on screen stated "WATER RESISTANT SCRATCH RESISTANT DUST PROOF It's life proof".
Issue
Three complainants challenged whether the ads misleadingly exaggerated the durability of the mobile phone, because they had dropped their phones accidentally and the screens had cracked.
Response
Motorola Mobility UK Ltd (Motorola) said they strongly believed the ads were not misleading and did not exaggerate the capability or performance of the product. They said the Motorola DEFY had a scratch resistant display that had specific resistance to bumps, impacts, scrapes and scratches, because it was chemically strengthened to create a layer that acted as an 'armour' to reduce the introduction of flaws by end users. They said the type of glass used had been exhaustively impact-tested and its performance under stress was the reason for the selection of the particular material for the DEFY screen. They submitted links to the product website and that of the screen manufacturer.
They said the ads involved the same phone. The phone was dropped in a number of takes and the ad was shot live and without enhancement or the use of computer generated imagery. They believed that experience was indicative of users' experiences in general. They said they had conducted extensive drop testing on the model and the results demonstrated superior ability to withstand drop damage. They said the DEFY was designed to be robust; it was screwed together, rather than being snapped together, and the battery compartment was locked, which helped to ensure the phone did not flex or separate on impact. They said the glass used was impact-resistant and was slightly recessed below the edge of the phone to protect it from damage as a result of being dropped. Additionally, the casing was made from thick plastic.
Motorola said they also had an accelerated life testing programme, where the phone was put through various tests to ensure the design met its intended use. The tests involved circumstances more extreme than those that would usually be encountered by consumers and were designed to push products to their limits in order to uncover failures; for example, the drop tests were conducted in a manner that isolated areas of the phone susceptible to failure. They said the tests included dropping the phone from multiple heights onto multiple surfaces. Individual DEFYs had been dropped as many as 25 times onto the various surfaces and numerous units had been used in order to understand the expected performance of the design. They said overall the product had been subjected to around 300 'drops' and the testing continued after the initial launch to verify that performance and quality remained consistent. Motorola said the results demonstrated that the phone performed better than their other products, and better than most competitor products, and suggested that there was approximately 1.5% probability of the product failing due to material damage, including cosmetic damage, functional failures and display lens cracks, in a drop from the height shown in the ad. Of the 1.5% failure, only 0.1% was due to display lens failure. They said the ads had been approved by Clearcast when they received details about the product's casing and construction. Motorola said the DEFY was certified against an independent international standard, which it met for having complete protection against dust and because it should not be possible for a harmful quantity of water to enter the phone when it was immersed in water up to one metre in depth for 30 minutes. They submitted details of the testing for water and dust ingress as well as of the accelerated life drop testing.
They said the ads were an honest depiction of the product. However, they were not aware of the specific incidents that had caused the complainants' phones to crack and could not cater for every eventuality. They said there had been instances where a user's treatment of a phone had resulted in damage far exceeding that which could be described as accidental. The intention of the product, as portrayed in the ads, was that it was resistant to accidental damage. They said they were reviewing the training of their customer service team since the ASA had contacted them, to ensure staff could recognise and differentiate product abuse from accidental damage so that, as far as possible, customers with a genuine fault received a repair or replacement in line with their product promise. Motorola said the product had been successful across Europe and the proportion of returns in the UK that were due to the resistive nature of the product had been very low; they had been dealt with in accordance with their usual returns policy and the low failure rate supported the results of their testing. They said they had reviewed their warranty process and not all screen breaks or drops meant the product was no longer covered by the warranty. They said each handset was assessed on a case by case basis. However, that could be difficult and they might not always get the assessment right. They said they took all complaints seriously but did not consider the complainants' experiences to be indicative of a wider problem.
Clearcast said they had been sent a technical specification that supported the visual claims made in the ads. They said they had advised Motorola that the ads should accurately represent how the product would handle the scenarios shown.
Assessment
Upheld
The ASA noted the complainants had each accidentally dropped their phones and they had broken. We noted the ads showed the phone being dropped and splashed and that it included the on-screen text "DANCE FLOOR PROOF", "POOL PARTY PROOF" and "WATER RESISTANT SCRATCH RESISTANT DUST PROOF It's life proof". We considered viewers were not likely to interpret the ads as suggesting the product was entirely damage-resistant or that there would not sometimes be faulty handsets but as promoting a product that was more durable than might be expected of a mobile phone and that it would generally withstand damage in the scenarios depicted and from day to day.
We noted the phone was intended to be bump, impact, scrape and scratch resistant but considered the ads, in particular the scene that involved the phone being dropped onto a dance floor and the on-screen text "DANCE FLOOR PROOF" and "It's life proof", suggested the phone would also not be damaged when it was dropped from the height shown in the ads. We noted the evidence Motorola submitted and acknowledged the testing was conducted in circumstances designed to be more extreme than were likely to be encountered by consumers, so as to detect failures. We also noted, however, we had not seen any evidence that directly reflected the dropping scenario depicted in the ads and that, in the evidence submitted, each of the tests resulted in damage to the phones, including their screens cracking. Because we had not seen evidence that dropping the DEFY from the height shown in the ads would not damage the phone, we concluded that the ads misleadingly exaggerated the performance of the product.
The ads breached BCAP Code rules 3.1 3.1 Advertisements must not materially mislead or be likely to do so. (Misleading advertising), 3.9 3.9 Broadcasters must hold documentary evidence to prove claims that the audience is likely to regard as objective and that are capable of objective substantiation. The ASA may regard claims as misleading in the absence of adequate substantiation. (Substantiation) and 3.12 3.12 Advertisements must not mislead by exaggerating the capability or performance of a product or service. (Exaggeration).
Action
The ads must not be broadcast again in their current form. We told Motorola to ensure future ads did not misleadingly exaggerate the performance of products.
