Background
Summary of Council decision:
Three issues were investigated, all of which were Upheld.
Ad description
A website, www.sterillo.com, for a hand dryer seen in December 2016, stated on its home page "2016 UK Government (PHE) Tested. Kills 99.96% of airborne germs ...". That claim linked to a test report. Further text stated "... Kills Smells ... eradicate offensive odours ... eliminate bacteria, mould and viruses ... massively reduce contamination ...".
On another page headed "Keeping you safe from the dangers that lurk in the washroom", text stated "With the revolutionary new Sterillo, you'll never need to worry again about that toilet seat or door handle. It emits a sanitising layer that lands on all exposed surfaces, keeping them permanently free of bacteria ... How it works. The Sterillo uses advanced oxidation technology sometimes known as Photohydroionisation to produce a range of free radical ions including the purest form of oxygen - atomic oxygen - O1. These free-radicals flow from the Sterillo in a plasma form which reacts more like a liquid and flow over every exposed surface in the washroom where they kill bacteria, mould and viruses 24 hours a day - 7 days per week ...".
Issue
Dyson challenged whether the following efficacy claims were misleading and could be substantiated:
1. "Kills 99.96% of airborne germs";
2. "Kills smells" and "eradicate offensive odours";
3. "Eliminate bacteria, mould and viruses", "massively reduce contamination", "keep [exposed surfaces] permanently free of bacteria" and "flow over every exposed surface in the washroom where they kill bacteria, mould and viruses 24 hours a day - 7 days per week".
Response
Heat Outdoors Ltd explained that the Sterillo was an advanced hand dryer that contained, under the cover, a separate chamber designed to destroy bacteria, viruses and mould. The product worked by drawing air up by heating it slightly and therefore making it rise through the sterilising chamber. The sterilising chamber emitted ultraviolet C (UVC) light which deactivated the DNA of bacteria, viruses and other pathogens, therefore preventing them from multiplying, and ultimately killing them. They said the use of UVC light to destroy bacteria was widespread and based on established science.
1. Heat Outdoors explained that the claim "Kills 99.96% of airborne germs" was the wording they had been advised to use by Public Health England (PHE), the body that had independently tested the unit. They provided a copy of the test report, which was also available on the website itself. They also provided a copy of email correspondence with PHE regarding the claim.
Heat Outdoors understood that Dyson had concerns that the testing had been carried out under conditions that were not representative of the average washroom; in particular, that the testing was carried out in a one cubic metre sealed chamber without a ventilation system. They explained they had commissioned PHE to test how efficiently the Sterillo killed airborne germs and that PHE had devised the testing protocol. A small UVC lamp had been placed in the Sterillo chamber for the purposes of the test, which had 10% of the power of a fully sized UVC lamp. The protocol involved introducing a known quantity of bacteria into a defined space and measuring the number of bacteria present, both after the unit had been turned on and with it turned off, to measure the difference between the two. They said that for the tests to be accurate, the vessel needed to be sealed so that the starting quantity of bacteria did not escape. They believed that using a ventilated space, as Dyson had suggested, would invalidate the results because the testing environment could not be controlled. They asserted that the results showed that the technology successfully killed germs, and they pointed out that the full test report was available for download on the website.
Heat Outdoors understood that another concern about the methodology was that only one type of bacteria had been tested – Staphylococcus epidermidis. They said that there were millions of different bacteria and that testing against all or even many of them would not be feasible, both from a financial and practical perspective. They were advised by PHE that this specific strain of bacteria provided an excellent representation of the types of bacteria found in the air and likely to cause infections in a washroom setting. They understood this was the bacteria used in the testing of many products and was widely regarded as being an accurate marker for other reactions. As the test report was accessible on the website, consumers could find this information easily.
Heat Outdoors provided a copy of an email from PHE regarding the choice of bacteria for the testing.
2. Heat Outdoors asserted that most washroom smells (volatile organic compounds or VOCs) were destroyed by being passed over a germicidal wavelength UVC lamp. They said it was well established science, going back almost 100 years, and provided a link to a Wikipedia page on VOCs. They said many products were being sold that used this technology and they provided a paper entitled "Ultraviolet germicidal irradiation". They admitted that the PHE report was not set up to attempt to monitor smells. However, they explained that air was drawn up into the chamber using thermal airflow. In other words, the air was heated by the lamps and as it rose, was drawn past the UVC lamp. They believed it was a logical conclusion that if any VOCs entered the chamber with the airflow, they too would be destroyed.
They also provided some testimonials from clients using the Sterillo that referred to the product's effectiveness at removing smells.
3. Heat Outdoors re-iterated the point that this was not new technology and that the science was well established and undisputed. They believed the information above proved that direct germicidal UVC exposure eradicated all viruses, moulds and bacteria, and therefore it stood to reason that the product, which used UVC technology, would be able to massively remove contamination. They pointed out that according to the results of the PHE test, the bacteria was reduced by 99.65% which they understood PHE considered was total elimination.
In relation to the claims "keep [exposed surfaces] permanently free of bacteria" and "flow over every exposed surface in the washroom where they kill bacteria, mould and viruses 24 hours a day – 7 days per week" they believed that once the contaminant was gone, it would stay that way until it was re-introduced, in which case it would be removed by the product again. They explained that when the Sterillo was connected to a power supply, it would operate 24 hours a day, seven days a week cleaning the air and was unaffected when being used as a hand dryer.
Assessment
1., 2. & 3. Upheld
The ASA understood that the Sterillo was a hand dryer that had been designed with an air purifying component, which operated by drawing air, using convection, through a chamber containing a UV lamp to destroy bacteria and other pathogens (i.e. disease-causing micro-organisms) in the air. We understood, from Heat Outdoors, that whilst the hand dryer was operated intermittently, the air purification system was operated at all times the product was connected to an electricity supply.
We considered traders were likely to understand the claim "Kills 99.96% of airborne germs" to mean the product would kill 99.96% of pathogens in the air, including bacterial, mould and viruses in a washroom environment. They were likely to interpret the claim "massively reduce contamination" to mean the product would almost completely reduce contamination by pathogens in a washroom environment.
We considered the report by PHE. The test evaluated the product's ability to reduce the airborne concentration of the bacterium Staphylococcus epidermidis. The test was carried out in a one cubic metre chamber under two conditions: 1. with the air purification technology operating and, 2. with the unit switched off, over a period of three hours. The hand drying element of the unit was switched off under both test conditions. The reduction of Staph. epidermidis was measured and it was found that when the unit was operational, it reduced the airborne concentration of Staph. epidermidis to near zero in two hours. The report stated that even taking into account the natural reduction of Staph. epidermidis in the air due to deposition and natural death, the technology showed a 99.96% efficiency for removing Staph. epidermidis from the air within two hours.
We noted that the test only measured one type of bacteria (Staph. epidermidis) and it did not measure the air purifying effect on other types of bacteria, moulds or viruses. The email from PHE to Heat Outdoors explained that there were billions of bacteria (some were pathogenic, some were not) and they all had very different properties. PHE had advised Heat Outdoors that without carrying out the test on other bacteria, moulds and viruses, it would not be possible to state that the technology would have the same effect on them as it did with Staph. epidermidis.
We also noted that the test did not measure the effect of the product on smells and odours. We considered the testimonials provided were not adequate substantiation for claims that the product killed smells and eradicated offensive odours.
Although the test did show a reduction of Staph. epidermidis in the chamber to almost zero, it was limited to a two-hour period. We therefore considered the test was not adequate substantiation for claims that the product had a longer lasting effect. We also noted that the test did not measure surface bacteria and therefore considered it was not adequate substantiation for the claims "keep [exposed surfaces] permanently free of bacteria" and "flow over every exposed surface in the washroom where they kill bacteria, mould and viruses 24 hours a day – 7 days per week".
We also had concerns that the test chamber, which was one cubic metre and sealed, did not represent a real-life washroom environment. Whilst we noted Heat Outdoors' comments regarding the difficulties in accounting for natural reduction of bacteria due to ventilation in a more realistic setting, we considered the evidence needed to show that the product made a perceptible difference to the airborne pathogens in a washroom setting for the claims to be substantiated.
For those reasons, we considered that the claims "Kills 99.96% of airborne germs", "Kills smells" and "eradicate offensive odours", "Eliminate bacteria, mould and viruses", "massively reduce contamination", "keep [exposed surfaces] permanently free of bacteria" and "flow over every exposed surface in the washroom where they kill bacteria, mould and viruses 24 hours a day – 7 days per week" had not been substantiated and were misleading.
The ad breached 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).
Action
The ad must not appear again in its current form. We told Heat Outdoors Ltd to ensure that they held adequate substantiation for efficacy claims about their product in future.
