Background
Summary of Council decision:
Three issues were investigated, of which one was Upheld and two were Not upheld.
Ad description
Claims on the website www.speedlinereuro.com, promoting a protective spray liner system for vehicles, stated "SPEEDLINER(R) HC (HYGIENE COAT) ... with the addition of DuPont Kevlar(R) fibre provides unsurpassed cut and tear resistance. No other spray-on liner system can utilise the Kevlar(R) option ... The inclusion of Ultra-Fresh(TM) antimicrobial system into SPEEDLINER(R) HC provides active anti bacterial and anti fungal protection ... Ultra-Fresh(TM) is effective in the fight against bacteria such as MRSA and E-coli and creates a hostile environment for such organisms which cannot survive on the SPEEDLINER(R) HC liner".
Issue
Walkden Group Ltd challenged whether the following claims were misleading and could be substantiated:
1. "... the addition of DuPont Kevlar(R) fibre ...", because they believed that the product used in the liner system was not genuine Kevlar(R) obtained from an authorised source;
2. "No other spray-on liner system can utilise the Kevlar(R) option", because they understood that that was not the case; and
3. "The inclusion of Ultra-Fresh(TM) antimicrobial system into SPEEDLINER(R) HC provides active anti bacterial and anti fungal protection", because they understood that test certificates held in relation to the antimicrobial properties related to a different product.
Response
1. European Polymer Products (Group) Ltd supplied a copy of a commercial invoice from DuPont International Operations Sarl (DuPont) demonstrating the purchase of Kevlar(R) and a letter confirming an agreement between their company and DuPont for the supply of a specific type of Kevlar(R) pulp fibre. They provided photos showing the addition of that pulp fibre to their product.
2. European Polymer Products stated that to their knowledge their own products were the only polymer spray liner systems, within the territories stated in their agreement with DuPont, to include genuine Kevlar(R). After consideration of the complaint, however, they said they would remove the claim that no other system could use the Kevlar(R) option.
3. European Polymer Products supplied details of testing conducted on the product Speedliner HC to determine its anti-microbial properties. They acknowledged that, whereas the web page itself referred to their product as "Speedliner HC", some of the test reports used the name "Speedliner Euro HS/HC". They confirmed that the product was the same in all cases.
Assessment
1. Not upheld
The ASA understood from the documentation supplied that European Polymer Products obtained genuine Kevlar(R) directly from DuPont for use in their product, Speedliner(R) HC. We therefore concluded that the reference to "... the addition of DuPont Kevlar(R) fibre" to the product was not misleading.
On that point, we investigated the claim 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.
2. Upheld
We considered that consumers would be likely to understand the claim "No other spray-on liner system can utilise the Kevlar(R) option" to mean that Speedliner(R) HC was the only spray-on liner system that could include Kevlar(R). In order to support that claim, European Polymer Products needed to supply evidence that only their product could use Kevlar(R), whether because of the technology involved or because of the rights granted by DuPont. Although the documentation supplied demonstrated that Speedliner(R) HC made use of Kevlar(R), it did not show that it was that the only spray-on liner system able to do so. In the absence of adequate substantiation, we concluded that the claim was misleading. We welcomed European Polymer Products’ assurance that it would be removed.
On that point, the claim breached 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).
3. Not upheld
We understood that Walkden Group Ltd were concerned that the test certificates held by European Polymer Products in support of the claims for the product's anti-microbial properties related to a different product produced by an American company. We noted, however, that the tests had been conducted specifically for European Polymer Products and referred to "Speedliner HC" and "Speedliner Euro HS/HC", neither of which matched the name of the American product mentioned by Walkden Group Ltd. Although we considered it would have been preferable for the test reports uniformly to use the name "Speedliner HC", and thus to match with the website, on this occasion we were satisfied that the test reports supported the claim "The inclusion of Ultra-Fresh(TM) antimicrobial system into SPEEDLINER(R) HC provides active anti bacterial and anti fungal protection". We therefore concluded that that claim was unlikely to mislead.
On that point, we investigated the claim 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
The claim investigated and found to be in breach of the CAP Code must not appear again in its current form. We told European Polymer Products (Group) Ltd to ensure that in future they held adequate substantiation to support their objective claims.
