1. Autoglass said they had a Research and Innovation department that specialised in understanding the science of glass and glass damage, as well as a number of innovations which assisted in the repair and replacement of glass. They supplied the ASA with a report prepared by their in-house scientists summarising the work they had undertaken and also referred to independent studies and research carried out by other institutions, as well as other studies they hadcommissioned to show how much weaker glass becomes once it had chip damage.

Autoglass explained that over the past decade vehicle glass had become thinner, which meant that any damage to the glass had also altered and was now usually a star break made up of thousands of microcracks emanating from the centre point and invisible to the naked eye. They said, once the microcracks were created they were 'living damage' and factors such as heat, cold, movement of the vehicle and moisture would work on the chip causing it to grow. They said that growth occurred at different speeds over different periods, molecule by molecule, but the combination of the various factors determined whether the rate of growth was visible to the naked eye. Autoglass said once the factors combined to exceed the instant failure rate of the glass, the growth would become visible as an instantly formed long crack, either instantaneously due to sudden shock, or over time as a result of accumulated stresses of temperature, humidity and road driving conditions. They said the research showed that damaged glass was much weaker than undamaged glass in that it had reduced instant failure strength of up to 70%. They believed that a damaged windscreen was less able to stand up to the stresses and strains of driving and of climatic changes. They said a similar effect to metal fatigue could be found in glass and repeated small stresses, each one less than would cause an instant failure of the glass, caused the bond between two glass molecules to fail, which in turn put more stress on the next molecule bond resulting in the chip growing and eventually cracking.

Autoglass said they regularly surveyed their customers and the results showed that of those customers who identified the origin of their cracked windscreen to be a chip, the vast majority who noticed the time it took for the chip to crack reported that it happened within weeks to six months. Autoglass said they were unable to predict when a chip would crack, because every chip, windscreen, road, driver and set of climatic conditions was different. Nonetheless they believed that, as demonstrated by the research, it was not a question of if a chip would crack but when, which was why they stated that every chip would "eventually" crack.

Autoglass believed that, because every chip grew inexorably or instantly and that at a certain point the stress in the vehicle glass focused into a point by the chip would exceed its instant failure resulting in a crack, the claim was not misleading.

2. Autoglass said the research studies they provided to the ASA supported the claim that air conditioning contributed to the creation of visible cracks in windscreen glass from windscreen chips. They believed that the reports demonstrated the effect of air conditioning created temperature gradients in the windscreen glass that contributed to the instant failure stress point being exceeded resulting in the instant formation of a crack.

3. Autoglass said the intention of the ad was to make motorists aware that a repair to a windscreen chip would save them time and money rather than waiting until the chip cracked and was also an excellent way to promote vehicle and driving safety. They said they raised awareness of how chips could turn into cracks, although they acknowledged that not every chip was repairable. They said their advertising message was to bring to the attention of motorists that air conditioning could accelerate the process of chips becoming cracks.

Autoglass said their customer survey showed that many of the respondents were unaware that a chip on their windscreen had cracked, which could have been repaired and might have avoided the windscreen being replaced. They believed the ad was educating consumers about their windscreens rather than scaremongering, as the likelihood of windscreen damage arising from an unrepaired chip and requiring a high insurance excess to be paid was a real one for many motorists.

The Radio Advertising Clearance Centre (RACC) endorsed Autoglass's response and said their consultant had been provided with the in-house report, the independent studies and research, and the studies commissioned by Autoglass also provided to the ASA and concluded the claims were substantiated.