Ad description
A website for Perpetuus graphene production, www.perpetuusam.com, stated "Perpetuus have solved the fundamental problems that inhibit the commercialisation of graphene ... producer and supplier of nano surface modified graphenes ... on an industrial scale ... Perpetuus plasma technology provides a cost effective, industrial scale, quality consistent method of producing graphitic nanostructures" and made further references to producing graphene on a commercial scale.
Issue
The complainant, who understood that graphene production was not yet carried out on an industrial scale and was too expensive for the material to be commercially viable, challenged whether the claims and implications that Perpetuus produced graphene products on a commercial and industrial scale was misleading and could be substantiated.
Response
Perpetuus Advanced Materials Ltd stated that they had developed a new, patent pending method of production that enabled them to produce large volumes of surface-modified graphenes at a selling price of £50 per kilogram. They explained that most producers manufactured in small quantities and at higher prices, which they estimated averaged over £1000 per kilogram. They noted that a similar product for sale through the internet had a price of $20,000 per kilogram.
Perpetuus provided a report from The Technology Partnership, which listed six UK-based graphene producers (including the advertiser) and their outputs. One company was stated to be planning volume production in 2015, and four companies were stated to have production capacities (or plans) for amounts between 350 kg per year and 3 tonnes. One of these companies was stated to be planning to expand their capacity to 10 tonnes per year by the end of 2015. Perpetuus was stated to be the only UK company currently claiming to make graphene in large volumes, clarified at 10 tonnes per year as of mid-2014. Perpetuus stated that they were aware of manufacturers claiming to produce up to 80 tonnes, but that these figures hadn't been independently verified and were for graphene that had not been 'functionalised' (surface modified).
Perpetuus also stated that they had signed a commercial agreement with a large multi-national group, and that they believed this represented the first global mass-market commercial application for plasma functionalised nano carbon enabled technologies.
Perpetuus stated that they had had their current output capacity independently verified by a reputable work-study company. They said the report supported the fact that they had the capacity to produce 27,150 kg of graphenes per year when working on a single shift basis, and that the theoretical capacity was over 141,000 kg. They believed that this level of production would be considered a commercial and industrial scale by all reasonable experts in the industry. They provided a copy of the report. Based on the output recorded during an on-site visit, the report concluded that, if the Perpetuus facility was run every day for 24 hours, allowing 8 hours a week for maintenance, the theoretical output capacity was 141,690 kg per year. It also concluded that the practical capacity (based on 50 weeks per year with an 8-hour working day and three days a week for maintenance) was 27,150 kg per year.
Assessment
Not upheld
The ASA considered that readers would understand 'commercial scale' and 'industrial scale' as claims that Perpetuus could produce sufficient graphene materials to be a viable supplier for commercial or industrial use. We understood that the complainant was particularly concerned that the cost of graphene was a key barrier to its uptake in commercial uses and that they believed graphene to currently be prohibitively expensive. We acknowledged Perpetuus' statement that their product had a selling price of £50 per kilogram and that this was significantly cheaper than other similar materials. The independent report concluded that there was a current practical capacity of over 27 tonnes per year, and we noted that this was considerably more than the planned scale of production from the other companies listed in the TTP report. We also understood that Perpetuus had entered into a commercial agreement with a company that intended to use its materials in production in the immediate future, and considered that this indicated that their ability to produce graphene products was sufficiently high to supply large enough quantities for industrial use. We also considered that it was reasonable for an advertiser supplying materials to industry as part of a commercial relationship to describe their production capacity as operating on a 'commercial' or 'industrial' scale. We therefore concluded that the claims had been substantiated and were not misleading.
We investigated the ad under CAP Code (Edition12) 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), but did not find it in breach.
Action
No further action required.
