Ad description
Two ads, for natural sunlight lamps, that appeared in the advertiser's catalogue.
Ad (a) was headed "Flick the switch, turn on the sunshine". Text below stated "Flicker-free, glare-free, the full spectrum light bulbs improve contrast, make colours clearer, print sharper and ease strain on your eyes."
Ad (b) was headed "Stimulate natural sunlight indoors". Text below stated "Natural sunlight lamps bring the outdoors in by stimulating natural daylight with the use of full-spectrum light, which is as bright and white as natural daylight. Flicker-free and glare-free, a full spectrum light bulb improves contrast, making colours appear sharper, print appear clearer, paper appear whiter, so it's easier on the eyes."
Issue
The complainant challenged whether the following claims were misleading and could be substantiated:
1. "Flicker-free" in ads (a) and (b);
2. That the light-bulb was both "Full Spectrum" and "Fluorescent" in ads (a) and (b);
3. "Makes colours clearer" in ad (a); and
4. "Improves contrast making colours appear sharper" in ad (b).
Response
1. Easylife Group Ltd (Easylife) said that the product was flicker-free to the human eye. They said that the term was used to highlight the perception of flicker. They explained that when a light was flickering at a rate of 50 hertz (Hz) or more, people could not distinguish between the individual flickers. They provided a link to the Canadian Centre for Occupational Health and Safety's website, which stated "People can see lights flashing on and off up to about 50 flashes per second (50Hz) … When a light is flickering at a frequency greater than 50 or so Hertz, most people can no longer distinguish between individual flickers". They also provided a product certificate, a link to a replacement bulb website and a photo of a label to demonstrate that the light operated at 50 Hz.
2. Easylife said that their light emulated sunlight, which was considered to be full-spectrum. They also said that a light was considered to be full-spectrum if it had a Colour Rendering Index (CRI) figure of more than 90. They provided a link to the Lighting Research Centre's website, which stated "Colour rendering index (CRI) values for full-spectrum lighting sources are typically greater than 90". They also provided a CRI Report for the product, and highlighted the figure that showed the light had a level of 91. They explained that a light was considered to be a daylight simulator when its luminance exceeded 3000 lumens. They provided a photo of a testing device that had been placed 30 centimetres (cm) below a light, as demonstrated by a tape measure, which featured in the image. The device had a reading of "3422".
3. & 4. Easylife said that colour perception was subjective and based on individual assessment. They said that it was generally accepted that sunlight provided the best light for colour contrast and visual perception. They cited two quotes from the Lighting Research Centre, which stated "… when color [sic] identification is part of the visual task, such as for graphic arts, museums and colour printing applications, full-spectrum light sources will ensure good color [sic] discrimination" and "Since many artists' studios don't have north-facing windows, full-spectrum lights are sometimes used to approximate such light … Full-spectrum fluorescent lamps are also used by color [sic] scientists, color [sic] matchers in paint stores and quilters and others working with fabrics or yarn when working under inadequate lighting conditions to assist in achieving the correct hues as they will later appear in daylight or under gallery lighting". They pointed out that sunlight was measured as a level of kelvin and most daylight simulators created a light of approximately 6500 kelvin (K). They highlighted the figure on the CRI report, which they said showed that the light level was 6634 K. They also provided a link to a Wikipedia article on "Standard Illuminant". They highlighted a table at the bottom of the article entitled "white points", which listed a "Daylight simulator" as having a "CCT (K)" level of "6500".
Assessment
1. Upheld
The ASA acknowledged that Easylife provided documentary evidence to demonstrate that the product operated at 50 Hz. We also noted that the information on the Canadian Centre for Occupational Health and Safety's website indicated that people could see flickering up to a rate of 50 Hz. However, we noted that the source of evidence was a link to an online article, rather than, for example controlled studies to demonstrate that the statement was the generally accepted scientific opinion. We considered, therefore, that the evidence was not sufficient to demonstrate that 50 Hz represented a threshold whereby lights with a higher hertz level were flicker-free to the human eye. We noted that the evidence relating to the technical details of the product did not make clear that the information referred to the advertised Easylife product. Because the evidence was not sufficient to substantiate the claim, we concluded that the ad was misleading.
On that point, the ads 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).
2. Upheld
We noted that Easylife had provided a link to the Lighting Research Centre's website, which indicated that CRI values for full-spectrum lights were typically over 90, and highlighted the relevant CPR figure (91) on the report. We also noted that Easylife had provided a photo of a device showing a reading of 3422 lumens, placed at a distance of 30 cm from a light, which they said demonstrated that the product should be classified as a daylight simulator. However, we noted that Easylife did not provide any evidence to demonstrate that a light was considered to be a daylight simulator when it had luminance of over 3000 lumens and did not provide details of the test shown in the photo. We also noted that the source of evidence for the CPR threshold was a link to an online article, rather than, for example controlled studies to demonstrate that the statement was the generally accepted scientific opinion. We considered, therefore, that the evidence was not sufficient to demonstrate that a full-spectrum light had a CPR level of 90 or above. We also noted that Easylife did not provide any evidence to demonstrate that the light was fluorescent. Because the evidence was not sufficient to substantiate the claim, we concluded that the ad was misleading.
On that point, the ads 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. & 4. Upheld
We noted that Easylife provided quotes from the Lighting Research Centre, which stated full-spectrum light sources would "ensure good color [sic] discrimination". We also noted that Easylife highlighted a figure of 6634 K on the CRI report, which they said indicated the light was in excess of the daylight simulator threshold (6500 K). However, we considered that we had not seen evidence to demonstrate that daylight simulators would make colours clearer or improve contrast. We noted that one of the quotes stated "full-spectrum light sources will ensure good color [sic] discrimination" only when "color [sic] is part of the visual task". We also noted that one of the quotes suggested full-spectrum lights assisted in "achieving the correct hues" when performing specific work in which colour distinction was central to the task. We considered, therefore, that the statements did not suggest consumers would notice a difference in colour sharpness and contrast when using a full-spectrum light to perform everyday tasks. Nevertheless, we also considered that the quotes from the Lighting Research Centre did not alone represent a sufficiently detailed scientific analysis of full-spectrum lights. Because the evidence was not sufficient to substantiate the claim, we concluded that the ad was misleading.
On those points, the ads 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).
Action
The ads must not appear in their current form. We told Easylife Group Ltd to ensure they held adequate evidence when making objective claims about their products.
