Ad description

A website for a company selling automotive supplies, www.commaoil.com, featured a search function entitled "Products Finder". The generated results for the "Mercedes-Benz Vito/V-Class Vito 112 CDI/V220 (1999-2003)" stated "Products For Your Mercedes-Benz Vito/V-Class Vito 112 CDI/V220 (1999-2003)" and included a product called "MVATF", which was recommended for the component "Transaxle automatic ZF 4HP20 4/1" of the "Mercedes-Benz Vito/V-Class Vito 112 CDI/V220 (1999-2003)".

Issue

The complainant challenged whether the implied claim that the product was suitable for their vehicle was misleading, because after using the product their vehicle had broken down.

Response

Comma Oil & Chemicals Ltd said MVATF was suitable to use in the transmission of a Mercedes-Benz Vito/V-Class Vito 112 CDI/V220 (1999-2003). They explained that the process they used to determine the suitability of MVATF was well established, not only for Comma Oil & Chemicals, but also the oil industry in general. They explained that as an independent blender they purchased technology from large additive companies that invested heavily in testing to determine the suitability of any lubricant formulation for a specific application. Comma Oil & Chemicals said they purchased technology as either a pre-prepared finished fluid or, as is more commonly the case, as a formulation that they replicate in their plant according to the additive companies' instructions and their internal manufacturing processes and controls. They said the additive company supplied them with the supporting data about MVATF, which they translated directly into their claims about the product, including its suitability for use with the complainant's make of vehicle.

Comma Oil & Chemicals said the relevant specification for MVATF, as determined by Mercedes-Benz, was MB 236.11. They explained that in order for MVATF to have been suitable for use in applications requiring MB 236.11 it had to go through and pass a series of tests. Comma Oil provided us with the complete data pack of the testing, which was provided to them by their additive manufacturer. This showed that MVATF had passed every test designed to assess its suitability for use with the complainant's make of vehicle. Comma Oil & Chemicals explained that these tests were the basis of their claim that MVATF was suitable for use in applications requiring MB 236.11.

Assessment

Not upheld

The ASA understood that Comma Oil & Chemical’s process to determine the suitability of their products, which included MVATF, was well established both for them and within the oil industry in general. The additive company responsible for MVATF provided Comma Oil & Chemicals with supporting evidence and data, which formed the basis of Comma Oil & Chemical’s claim that MVATF was suitable for the complainant's vehicle. We noted that within this data were the results of a number of tests which the product had all passed. We noted that Comma Oil & Chemicals provided us with the full data pack of the testing carried out by their additive company against MVATF. We understood that a wide range of tests had been carried out, which included bench, seals and performance tests and the range of testing followed an accepted industry standard. We understood that these tests concluded that MVATF was suitable for use in applications requiring MB 236.11, which was the specification determined by the complainant's vehicle manufacturer. Furthermore we noted that MVATF had passed through Comma Oil & Chemicals own manufacturing processes and controls. We noted that the complainant said their vehicle had broken down after having used the product. However, because MVATF had passed a number of thorough industry standard tests to ensure MVATF was suitable for use with the complainant's vehicle, we considered MVATF was suitable for use with the complainant's vehicle and we therefore concluded that the ad was not misleading.

We investigated the ad under CAP Code (Edition 12) rules  3.1 3.1 Marketing communications must not materially mislead or be likely to do so.  (Misleading advertising) and  3.7 3.7 Before distributing or submitting a marketing communication for publication, marketers must hold documentary evidence to prove claims that consumers are 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) but did not find it in breach.

Action

No further action necessary.

CAP Code (Edition 12)

3.1     3.7    


More on