Ad description
Website product page on Amazon for an "Aquarius Luxury Folio Case Cover for Kindle Paperwhite". The ad stated the case cover was "designed specifically for the Kindle Paperwhite" with "cut outs for the various ports and features of the Paperwhite". The web page included four images of the product with three of those images featuring larger versions on the page.
Issue
The complainant, who had purchased the product, challenged whether the claim that the case was designed specifically for the Kindle Paperwhite was misleading and could be substantiated.
Investigated under CAP Code (Edition 12) rule 3.1 (Misleading advertising) and rule 3.7 (Substantiation).
Response
Grand Gadgets said the case was designed specifically for the Kindle Paperwhite. They asserted that the magnets in the case were not in the wrong place, as the claimant believed, and said that they served the purpose of closing the case, rather than supporting the autowake and autosleep functions. They said the magnets were located at the bottom of the case, so that it could be opened without interfering with the product's stand feature. They stated the sides of the case did not have 'cut outs' but that these were straps that acted as holders for the Kindle Paperwhite. They stated that these holders were symmetrically designed to ensure the Kindle Paperwhite did not slide out. They said the ports and power switch on the Kindle Paperwhite were located on the bottom of the device and a cut out on the case allowed access to these inputs. They said that the strap built into the case closed securely and the Kindle Paperwhite fitted perfectly within the case, as evidenced by the images in the ad, which showed a Kindle Paperwhite. They stated that an original Kindle would not have fitted into the case because the dimensions were different.
Assessment
Not upheld
The complainant believed that the product had been designed for the original Kindle rather than the Kindle Paperwhite. They said their Kindle Paperwhite did not fit the case properly, the magnets were in the wrong place and the cut outs were designed for the original Kindle's side buttons. They believed it was standard for the magnets in Kindle Paperwhite cases to activate an autoawake and autosleep function when they were opened and closed. The ASA noted that this feature was not present in the case. However, the ad did not refer to this as a feature of the case, which we considered consumers would understand was a specific additional feature, and the magnets used in the product were solely to secure the case shut.
The complainant also believed there were cut outs on the left and right sides of the case to allow access to buttons that were not present on the Kindle Paperwhite. We understood that these 'cut outs' were simply part of the design of the holder, serving the purpose of keeping the Kindle Paperwhite in place, and we noted they were symmetrically designed and held the Kindle Paperwhite secure.
The complainant also said the strap to the case did not close when their Kindle Paperwhite was inside it and that the case was an extremely tight fit. However, we noted that the image within the ad showed a Kindle Paperwhite securely fitted within the case, with the strap closed. We considered the advertiser had demonstrated that the product had been designed specifically for the Kindle Paperwhite and therefore concluded that the claim had been substantiated.
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 rule 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) but did not find it in breach.
Action
No further action necessary.
