Ad description
Claims on the Waterboost website, viewed on 3 September 2011, included "IN BRIEF: The Waterboost System uses spare electricity from your cars [sic] alternator to generate Hydrogen and Oxygen gas from water ...". It included various other efficacy claims about the product.
Issue
The complainant challenged whether the efficacy claims:
1. "The Waterboost System uses spare electricity from your cars [sic] alternator to generate Hydrogen and Oxygen gas from water. The Hydrogen and Oxygen is fed into the manifold of your vehicle ...";
2. "The enhancement of flame initiation and subsequent flame propagation reduces the ignition delay and combustion period in both spark ignition (eg. Petrol) and compression ignition (eg. Diesel) engines";
3. "The chain reaction initiated by the Hydrogen and Oxygen will cause a simultaneous ignition of all the primary fuel. As it all ignites at once, no flame front can exist and without it there is no pressure wave to create knock ...";
4. "The enhanced air/fuel/hydrogen mix burns up to 10 times faster however this rapid burn is so fast that the resulting power stroke and exhaust stroke will be much cooler, resulting in significantly less nitrous oxides (NOx)";
5. "Reducing hydrocarbons and CO causes a slight rise in the percentage of CO2 in the exhaust, but as less fuel is used, the actual quantity of CO2 produced is reduced by roughly the same ratio as the savings in fuel. In brief, noxious gas is almost eliminated and greenhouse gas is decreased in proportion to the reduction in fuel consumption ...";
6. "As well as a fuel saving device it helps to reduce harmful emissions and increases the oxygen levels your car produces. Carbon Dioxide is like fuel for plants, its [sic] is NOX and Carbon Monoxide that poison our environment and your Waterboost System can almost eliminate the production of these noxious gases. Any profits from the sale of these units will be used to fund ongoing research into new fuel technologies and off-grid solutions ..."; and
7. that the device increased the miles per gallon (MPG) achieved by a Ford KA from "38 - 43mpg" to "72 - 80mpg"
were misleading and could be substantiated.
Response
1.–7. Waterboost said they were unable to substantiate the claims, which were however accurate and clearly displayed on the website. They said the results were based on their own research and did not represent a guarantee of similar results for everyone. Waterboost said many other companies made similar claims but their products were inferior. They said they were willing to make changes to the website.
Assessment
1.–7. Upheld
The ASA noted the efficacy claims were based on the results of Waterboost's own research and were not intended to suggest everyone could achieve the same results. We considered, however, the ad was likely to be interpreted as suggesting that anyone who used Waterboost would achieve the claimed results. Nevertheless, we noted we had not seen any evidence in support of the claims, for which substantiation should generally be independent and reproducible. Because the claims had not been substantiated, we concluded that the ad was 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 Waterboost to ensure they held adequate substantiation before making efficacy claims in future.
