Background
Summary of Council decision:
Three issues were investigated, of which two were Upheld. The other was informally resolved after the advertiser agreed to amend or withdraw their advertising.
Ad description
A product page for a "Genuine Mercedes Benz HFP Bluetooth Kit" on a website for World of Accessories, www.world-of-accessories.co.uk, seen in April 2017. Text stated, "Latest Model & Software".
Issue
The complainant, who understood that the product was not the latest model and was not new, challenged whether:
1. the claim "Latest Model" was misleading and could be substantiated; and
2. the ad misleadingly omitted the fact that it was not new.
Response
1. & 2. Richard Jenkinson t/a World of Accessories acknowledged the complaint and said that they had written to Mercedes Benz for the relevant information. The said the product was the latest unit for cars dated 2004 onwards, and that after 2011 the "Mercedes command System" started to use integral Bluetooth as standard so no further model of the product was developed.
Assessment
1. Upheld
The ASA considered that consumers would understand from the ad that the product was the latest model. We noted that World of Accessories said they had written to Mercedes Benz for the relevant information., Advertisers were, however required to hold documentary evidence before making claims that consumers were likely to regard as objective and that were capable of objective substantiation. We therefore expected to see evidence that the product was the latest model. Because we had not seen any such evidence, 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. (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 considered that, in the absence of any qualification to make clear that the product was not new, consumers were likely to understand from the ad that it was a new product. The complainant had not received the product in its original packaging, and therefore believed it was not new. In the absence of any evidence to demonstrate that it was, we therefore 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.
and
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), 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 ad must not appear again in its current form. We told Richard Jenkinson t/a World of Accessories to ensure that they held evidence to demonstrate that a product was the latest model where it was described as such, and not to mislead by omitting the fact that a product was not new.
