Background
Summary of Council decision:
Two issues were investigated of which one was Upheld and one was Not upheld.
Ad description
A press ad for a wallet stated "A heightened level of security for your credit cards. For years, leather was considered the best material for wallets; not anymore. Now, these slim, sleek, stylish aluminium versions have stepped into the spotlight. Much more durable than leather, the lightweight 70g (2.5oz) aluminium case is waterproof and practically indestructible, easily protecting your credit cards from scratches, bending, snapping and demagnetisation. It will even shield cards data from RFID scanners, increasingly being used by fraudsters ... Lined with a resin interior, it features six expandable pockets and a one-touch opening clasp ... Aluminium Wallet £12.99".
Issue
1. The complainant, who did not believe the claim "It will even shield cards data from RFID scanners" could be substantiated, challenged whether it was misleading.
2. He also challenged whether the product could be described as "aluminium", because he understood aluminium was only applied to the exterior of the wallet.
Response
1. Telegraph Media Group Ltd (Telegraph) said there were numerous academic and editorially independent articles available through the internet that stated that aluminium foil was an effective shield against RFID scanners. They submitted three links to websites which featured views expressed on the subject, one of which stated "aluminium foil can be used to block RFID systems disrupting the system and subsequently causing them to record useless data and discrediting the technology". They said the wallets featured in the offer were made of solid aluminium and so should offer a more effective shield than the foil described in the articles.
2. They said the wallet was made of approximately 40% aluminium and that the ad included text that stated "Lined with a resin interior". They believed that, by describing the product as an "aluminium wallet", they were applying the same principle as products described as "leather wallets" or "leather gloves" that had fabric linings.
Assessment
1. Upheld
The ASA considered the claim "It will even shield cards data from RFID scanners" implied that the wallet prevented cards from being read from signals emitted by RFID scanners. The online articles highlighted the potential security and privacy threats associated with RFID scanners as they were used to obtain personal information from items such as credit and debit cards, ID cards, passports and travel passes, without users' permission and indicated that aluminium foil could be used to block the signals emitted from RFID scanners. We acknowledged that the principle of using aluminium to block RFID signals could be supported. However, we considered that such claims made about a particular product needed to be supported by tests conducted on that product and which demonstrated that it could effectively block the signals emitted from RFID scanners. In the absence of evidence relating to the advertised product we considered the claim "It will even shield cards data from RFID scanners" had not been substantiated and was therefore misleading.
On this 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), 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. Not upheld
The ad included a picture of the product when open that showed various cards placed in dividing sections. It also stated "the lightweight ... aluminium case is waterproof ... lined with a resin interior ... Aluminium Wallet £12.99". In that context, we considered that readers were likely to understand that, while the case of the wallet was made of aluminium, there were other parts that were not. We therefore concluded that the description of the product as "aluminium" was not misleading.
On this point we investigated the ad under CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1 3.1 Marketing communications must not materially mislead or be likely to do so. (Misleading advertising) and 3.11 3.11 Marketing communications must not mislead consumers by exaggerating the capability or performance of a product. (Exaggeration) but did not find it in breach.
Action
The ad must not appear again in its current form. We told Telegraph Media Group Ltd not to make the claim that the product could "shield cards data from RFID scanners" unless it was supported by evidence that related to the advertised product.
