Background
Summary of Council decision:
Six issues were investigated, all of which were Not upheld.
Ad description
a. The website for Ebuyer, www.ebuyer.com, included a product page for a "TP-Link Gigabit Load Balance Broadband Router". The summary at the top of the page stated "- Router - Load Balancing - Hardware DMZ port" and further text included "TP-Link Gigabit Load Balance Broadband Router Product Description The TL-ER5120 Gigabit Load Balance Broadband Router from TP-LINK possesses excellent data processing capabilities and multiple powerful functions including Load Balance, Access Control, IM/P2P Blocking, DoS Defense, Bandwidth Control, Session Limit and PPPoE Server, which meet the needs of small and medium enterprises, hotels and communities with large volumes of users demanding an efficient and easy-to-manage network with high security".
Features listed included "Intelligent Load Balance", "NAT support" and "IPsec". The "Technical Specification" section included text that stated "Network / Transport Protocol [..] DHCP".
b. Clicking on "TL-ER5120 Datasheet Download" in ad (a) downloaded a PDF document which included text that stated "PERFORMANCE Concurrent Session: 120000".
Issue
The complainant, who had purchased the product, challenged whether the following claims were misleading and could be substantiated:
1. "PERFORMANCE Concurrent Session: 120000" in ad (b);
2. "DHCP" in ad (a);
3. "Intelligent Load Balance" in ad (a);
4. "NAT support" in ad (a); and
5. "IPsec" in ad (a).
6. The complainant also challenged whether the claim that the product could "meet the needs of small and medium enterprises, hotels and communities with large volumes of users demanding an efficient and easy-to-manage network with high security" in ad (a) misleadingly exaggerated the capabilities of the product.
Response
1. - 6. Ebuyer (UK) Ltd said the claims were based on information provided by the product manufacturer, TP-Link. TP-Link provided a software test report on the product.
Assessment
1. - 5. Not upheld
The ASA understood that the claim "PERFORMANCE Concurrent Session: 120000" related to the number of connections the router could support across the network. The TP-Link test report showed that the maximum number of concurrent sessions the router could support was 120,000 and that this had been tested with stress testing software from an established company. Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol (DHCP) was a basic function of a router, which allocated IP addresses to the computers within its network. The TP-Link test report showed that the router's DHCP server had been tested and was functional. Intelligent load balancing was a function which let data automatically select the best route according to the load of two WANs. The TP-Link test report showed that the router's load balancing function had been tested and was functional. NAT support was a basic function of a router which allowed an IP network to maintain public IP addresses separately from private IP addresses. The TP-Link test report showed that the router's NAT support function had been tested and was functional. IPSec was a type of encryption and we understood that in the complainant's experience the IPSec connections dropped. Although we understood that in the complainant's experience these functions did not work in all circumstances, we considered these appeared to be related to a specific configuration issue and had not seen any evidence that this was a general problem with the router. We therefore concluded the claims had been substantiated.
On these points we investigated ads (a) and (b) 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 them in breach.
6. Not upheld
We considered that the claim "meet the needs of small and medium enterprises, hotels and communities with large volumes of users demanding an efficient and easy-to-manage network with high security" would be understood by consumers and businesses as a reference to the general capabilities of the router and what it might be suitable for. We also considered that those considering purchasing a router for such purposes would consider the overall technical specifications of the product carefully, taking into account their own specific needs. We acknowledged that the complainant had been unable to use the router to their satisfaction, had encountered difficulties using various functions, and that they had not been able to ascertain the cause of the problems and had therefore returned the product. However, in light of the information that the advertiser provided to demonstrate the capabilities of the product, we did not consider that we had cause to conclude that the problems encountered were due to the product itself rather than individual circumstances. We therefore concluded that the claim was not misleading.
On this point we investigated ad (a) under CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1 3.1 Marketing communications must not materially mislead or be likely to do so. (Misleading advertising), 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) and 3.11 3.11 Marketing communications must not mislead consumers by exaggerating the capability or performance of a product. (Exaggeration), but did not find it in breach.
Action
No further action necessary.
