Background
Summary of Council decision:
Two issues were investigated, both of which were Upheld.
Ad description
Claims seen on the Bosch website www.bosch-home.co.uk, promoting vacuum cleaners:
A web page describing the Athlet vacuum cleaner stated "The only cordless vacuums with the power of Bosch. Cordless, powerful, lightweight and agile, Athlet cordless vacuums combine maximum performance and convenience on carpet, wood, laminate or any floor type. Slim and manoeuvrable, the Athlet has superb power and, combined with the innovative SmartSensor Technology, achieves the same cleaning result as a corded vacuum cleaner. Flexible and adaptable with a runtime of 75 minutes, there's nothing to stop you cleaning the whole house in a single charge".
A product listing for the BCH732KTGB model stated "The Bosch formula for success. Incredibly powerful cleaning performance and a long runtime - all that with no cord". Further text stated "Cleans as powerful as a conventional vacuum cleaner* due to enhanced motor power and improved AllFloor HighPower Brush". An "additional information" tab below the initial description featured text stating "*Dirt pick-up (dust on carpet and hard floor with crevices, fibre pick-up on carpet) in comparison to a corded vacuum cleaner from Bosch (BGL3A315GB). Tested according to EN 60312".
Issue
Dyson Ltd challenged whether the claims:
1. "there's nothing to stop you cleaning the whole house in a single charge" was misleading and could be substantiated; and
2. "cleans as powerful as a conventional vacuum cleaner", in conjunction with the claim "incredibly powerful cleaning performance and long runtime", was misleading because it implied that maximum performance and maximum runtime could be achieved simultaneously.
Response
1. BSH Home Appliances Ltd said that the maximum runtime of the Bosch Athlet was 75 minutes, and could be achieved when the product was used on power setting one. They believed that was clear from the full claim seen in context.
They said that the runtime was dependent on the power setting used, not on the floor type. Although power setting one was primarily intended for hard floors, it could also be used on other surfaces, such as rugs or carpets. BSH stated that, provided the product was used and maintained in accordance with the user manual, there was no reason why the maximum runtime could not be achieved when cleaning floors other than hard floors on setting one. They said that use on a carpet would not significantly reduce runtime.
Because the product could run for 75 minutes on a single charge, it was possible for a consumer to clean their whole house without having to stop and recharge the product. BSH said that even if a higher power setting was used in combination with setting one, it would still be possible to clean an entire home in one charge (although the runtime would be shorter). The claim was based on publicly available statistics on the average size of homes in the UK, which indicated that the average usable floor area of dwellings in 2016 was 94 m². They said that their testing showed that the Bosch Athlet range was able to cover an area of over 200 m² in a single charge when used on power setting one. They therefore considered that the claim was not misleading.
2. BSH said that the claims should be assessed in context. They said that the claims did not refer to “maximum” performance or runtime at all, but simply stated that the product had a powerful cleaning performance and a long runtime. They said these were objective claims that they had demonstrated through testing. The performance and runtime claims were made in separate bullet points and did not cross-refer to one another. They therefore did not did not consider that consumers would interpret the claims as meaning that the product’s maximum performance and maximum runtime could be achieved simultaneously.
Assessment
1. Upheld
The ad stated “Flexible and adaptable with a runtime of 75 minutes**, there's nothing to stop you cleaning the whole house in a single charge”. Smaller text below the claim stated “**Based on power setting 1”. While the ASA noted that the qualification provided information on the power setting at which the 75-minute runtime could be achieved, there was nothing to indicate the types of floor surface that power setting 1 was intended for. Therefore we did not consider that consumers would understand that the runtime was achievable only with the setting that was intended for hard floors. In that context, we considered that consumers would understand the claim “there’s nothing to stop you cleaning the whole house in a single charge” to mean that they would be able to clean their entire house without stopping to re-charge the product. We therefore expected to see evidence to substantiate that the product could clean an entire house, which was representative of the average UK house both in terms of its total area and mix of flooring surfaces, in a single charge.
We considered that it would be relatively unusual for a UK home to have hard floors throughout. We noted BSH’s assertion that the product was able to cover an area 200 m² in a single charge, using the lowest setting, based on their own tests. However, we had not been provided with the test results themselves. Furthermore, it was not clear what floor surfaces were included in the testing, or why they were considered to be representative of those found in the homes of UK consumers. Because we had not seen evidence to substantiate the claim as consumers were likely to understand it, that is, that they would be able to clean their entire house in one charge, we concluded that the claim was misleading.
On that point, the ad breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules
3.1
3.1
Marketing communications must not materially mislead or be likely to do so.
3.3
3.3
Marketing communications must not mislead the consumer by omitting material information. They must not mislead by hiding material information or presenting it in an unclear, unintelligible, ambiguous or untimely manner.
Material information is information that the consumer needs to make informed decisions in relation to a product. Whether the omission or presentation of material information is likely to mislead the consumer depends on the context, the medium and, if the medium of the marketing communication is constrained by time or space, the measures that the marketer takes to make that information available to the consumer by other means.
(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).
2. Upheld
The ad stated “Incredibly powerful cleaning performance and a long runtime - all that with no cord". A bullet point beneath stated "Cleans as powerful as a conventional vacuum cleaner* due to enhanced motor power and improved AllFloor HighPower Brush” and another bullet point stated “Enhanced Bosch Lithium-Ion Technology: durable and powerful rechargeable batteries with up to 75 min run time and short charging time”. We acknowledged that the ad did not explicitly state that the vacuum cleaner’s maximum power capability and maximum runtime could be achieved at the same time, and that those attributes were listed separately in the bullet points. However, the ad strongly emphasised the high power performance and long runtime as the product’s key attributes, including in the claim “incredibly powerful cleaning performance and long runtime”, which presented them in conjunction with one another. In that context, and in the absence of any further information to indicate that the maximum runtime could only be achieved on the lowest setting, we considered that consumers would understand that the maximum performance and the maximum runtime could be achieved simultaneously. Because we understood that was not the case, we concluded that the ad was misleading.
On that point, the ad breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules
3.1
3.1
Marketing communications must not materially mislead or be likely to do so.
3.3
3.3
Marketing communications must not mislead the consumer by omitting material information. They must not mislead by hiding material information or presenting it in an unclear, unintelligible, ambiguous or untimely manner.
Material information is information that the consumer needs to make informed decisions in relation to a product. Whether the omission or presentation of material information is likely to mislead the consumer depends on the context, the medium and, if the medium of the marketing communication is constrained by time or space, the measures that the marketer takes to make that information available to the consumer by other means.
(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),
3.9
3.9
Marketing communications must state significant limitations and qualifications. Qualifications may clarify but must not contradict the claims that they qualify.
3.10
3.10
Qualifications must be presented clearly.
CAP has published a Help Note on Claims that Require Qualification.
(Qualification) and
3.11
3.11
Marketing communications must not mislead consumers by exaggerating the capability or performance of a product.
(Exaggeration).
Action
The ad must not appear again in the form complained about. We told BSH Home Appliances Ltd not to state or imply that the Bosch Athlet could clean an entire house on a single charge, unless they held evidence to demonstrate that it was capable of doing so in a context representative of the average UK home. We also told them not to state or imply that consumers could achieve maximum runtime at the same time as maximum performance, and to ensure claims were sufficiently qualified.
