Background

Summary of Council decision:

Three issues were investigated, all of which were Upheld.

Ad description

A national press ad and a magazine ad for Ecocamel Ltd, for a water descaler:

a. The national press ad, seen on 30 January 2019, included the heading “Fits in 15 seconds, cuts your energy bills forever”. Text included the claims “Removes existing scale”, “Prevents new scale forming”, “Greatly improves water texture”, “By using 4 powerful magnets, in a configuration that was developed in a laboratory, it causes the compounds which form the scale to be molecularly restructured”, “The gauss power is what changes the characteristics of the water and prevents limescale”. The ad also included the claims “Helps prevent dry skin, lack lustre hair” and “Can ease dry skin conditions such as eczema, psoriasis etc”.

b. The magazine ad, seen in April 2019, included the heading “Introducing the amazing cost saving device from Ecocamel that could … Make huge savings on your energy bills without changing suppliers”. The ad made the same claims as ad (a) with regards to the effects of the product on limescale.

Issue

Nineteen complainants challenged whether the following claims about the product in ads (a) and (b) were misleading and could be substantiated: 1. “Removes existing scale”, “Prevents new scale from forming”, “Greatly improves water texture”, “Causes the compounds which form the scale to be molecularly restructured” and “Prevents limescale”; 2. “cuts your energy bills forever”, “amazing cost saving device” and “Make huge savings on your energy bills”; and 3. “Can ease dry skin conditions such as eczema, psoriasis etc”.

Response

1. Ecocamel Ltd said that their product worked effectively to remove limescale. They provided three research papers and an article in a scientific newspaper that they stated substantiated the claim. The studies referred to were reports on experiments conducted on the efficacy of the magnetic treatment of water and its effects on reducing limescale in water. Ecocamel provided quotations from the studies that they stated showed that: a magnetic field existed; magnetic devices prevented limescale from forming due to the Lorentz effect (electromagnetic force); and an electromagnetic force had a direct effect on limescale reduction by changing the crystals formed in water from calcite to aragonite.

Ecocamel further provided an opinion from a scientist who worked in the field of water magnetisation who said that there was anecdotal evidence of people witnessing softening limescale on devices that used electronic water conditioners. They said that in some circumstances magnetic fields could inhibit limescale formation, but they were not aware of laboratory experiments that showed the removal of existing scale.

2. Ecocamel said that there was a lot of evidence to show that energy costs increased when limescale deposits were present in hot water systems. They provided information from evidence submitted to the Environmental Audit Committee, a Commons Select Committee, by a company that made electronic water treatment devices, regarding electronic water treatment systems. That evidence stated that water systems acted as insulators and therefore required boilers and chillers to operate for longer to transfer heat, which resulted in increased energy consumption and cost. Ecocamel provided two further articles that detailed the application of magnetic water treatment and a study from the US Department of Energy that stated that sediment and scale build-up on residential water equipment could lead to increased insulation, corrosion and tank failure.

3. Ecocamel stated that hard water contributed to an increase in skin conditions because soap did not wash off the skin and hair as effectively as when using soft water, leading to skin pores being blocked and skin drying. They provided three articles that detailed the prevalence of eczema amongst young children in hard water areas and concluded that exposure to hard water held a strong correlation to incidences of eczema.

Assessment

1. Upheld

The ASA considered that consumers would understand the claims “Removes existing scale”, “Prevents new scale from forming”, “Greatly improves water texture”, “Causes the compounds which form the scale to be molecularly restructured” and “Prevents limescale” to mean that the Ecocamel Descaler would be able to effectively remove limescale and calcium from their water and prevent it from forming in future. We understood that there was not a scientific consensus regarding the effectiveness of water treatments using magnets and we therefore considered that the claims in the ad were breakthrough claims that would require a body of robust evidence to support the claims made in both ads (a) and (b). We further understood that the efficacy of the product as it would be used by consumers was likely to depend on a range of factors including the type of water system or water flow. We therefore needed to see a body of evidence based on the Ecocamel Descaler itself and its effects on a broad range of systems.

Ecocamel had supplied the ASA with three studies, an article in a major scientific newspaper and a statement from a scientist who worked within the field to support the claims made in their ads. The studies stated that a magnetic field existed in water and suggested some explanations, including the Lorentz effect, as to why the magnetic field might have altered water that was passed through it. We noted that the studies and the article stated that there was no universally accepted theory about how the effect worked. The article detailed a number of experiments that had been conducted into the effects of magnets on water. However, it did not include full details of the methodology or findings of the experiments and therefore we could not assess them for their relevance and whether the studies substantiated the claims made by Ecocamel.

The three studies provided by Ecocamel all concluded that magnetic fields had some effect on water. However, they qualified those conclusions by stating that their findings relied on specific circumstances and that the Lorentz effect was not the only or necessarily the most significant effect on the water. We noted that Ecocamel had supplied a statement from a scientist who worked in the field who said that in some circumstances, magnetic devices would remove limescale. However, we were not provided with the full details of the experiments to show that this would happen under circumstances likely to be experienced by consumers, i.e. on a broad range of systems. We further noted that the statement said that they were not aware of laboratory experiments which showed already existing scale being removed. Additionally, the studies did not test the efficacy of the Ecocamel Descaler product and did not test it on a broad range of systems likely to be used by consumers. Because we were not provided with a substantive body of evidence with robust methodology and findings, including evidence relating to the product itself as it would be used by consumers, we concluded that the advertising claims that the Ecocamel Descaler could remove and prevent the formation of limescale and calcium were misleading.

On that point the ads 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 consumers would understand from the claims “cuts your energy bills forever”, “amazing cost saving device” and “Make huge savings on your energy bills” that by installing the device, their likely experience would be that their energy bills would be reduced. We acknowledged that the studies provided by Ecocamel suggested that energy costs could increase in systems with an increased amount of limescale. However, as explained above we considered that the claims that the product could effectively reduce limescale in consumer heating systems had not been substantiated. Also, we had not seen any evidence to show that the product itself was effective in reducing the bills of consumers who purchased it. We therefore concluded that the claims the product could reduce energy bills in both ads (a) and (b) were misleading.

On that point, the ads 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).

3. Upheld

We considered that consumers would understand the claim “Can ease dry skin conditions such as eczema, psoriasis etc” to mean that the product would be effective in assisting with the treatment of dry skin conditions. Three studies were provided by Ecocamel which suggested that hard water was a contributor to dry skin conditions including eczema. We understood that hard water could be an irritant to people with dry skin conditions and could in some cases exacerbate those conditions. However, as referenced above we had not seen adequate evidence that magnetic water treatment devices, and the Ecocamel device in particular, would ‘soften’ water and therefore have an effect on skin conditions. We therefore concluded on that point, both ads (a) and (b) were misleading.

On that point, the ads 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 12.1 (Medicines, medical devices, health-related products and beauty products).

Action

The ads must not appear again in their current form. We told Ecocamel Ltd not to claim that their product could remove limescale from, or prevent it from forming in, water systems, or that it could reduce energy bills or ease dry skin conditions.

CAP Code (Edition 12)

3.1     3.7    


More on