Ad description
An ad for the Vauxhall Ampera on 21 July 2011 stated "... When the internal combustion engine is used to supply the drive unit with electricity, it runs at a fixed speed, which makes it more efficient than a normal car engine. Under normal driving conditions where 80% of daily journeys are less than 30 miles, the combination of battery power and extended range technology deliver up to 175 miles per gallon of fuel whilst emitting less than 40g/km of CO2 (ECE R101 Test Cycle)".
Issue
An automotive journalist and blogger challenged whether the claims:
1. "Under normal driving conditions where 80% of daily journeys are less than 30 miles, the combination of battery power and extended range technology deliver up to 175 miles per gallon of fuel" was misleading and could be substantiated; and
2. that the car could emit less than 40 g/km of CO2 was misleading and could be substantiated, because he understood the claim did not take into account emissions from electricity used to power the car.
Response
1. General Motors UK Ltd (General Motors) said the claim was based on a pre-production Ampera and that the vehicle actually had a combined fuel consumption of 235 miles per gallon. They said their website stated that the Ampera was tested under the ECE R101 regulation for measuring fuel consumption and CO2 emissions, and submitted a copy of the EC vehicle type-approval certificate, which stated that the combined fuel consumption for the car was 1.2 litres per 100 km, which converted to 235 miles per gallon.
2. General Motors said there was no industry standard to measure CO2 emitted from electricity powering a vehicle. They said there were a number of variable factors that could make any figures produced inconsistent from manufacturer to manufacturer, and while not intentional could make them misleading to the general public. They also said some electricity providers used renewable energy while others did not, so they would need to use a hypothetical value to encompass the variety of energy producers.
Assessment
1. Not upheld
The ASA noted that the 175 miles per gallon claim had been calculated in accordance with European regulations. We also noted that the claim clearly stated that the fuel consumption was calculated in conditions where daily journeys were less than 30 miles, and as a combination of battery power and extended range technology. We therefore considered that readers would be aware that the claim included distance travelled using both petrol and electricity, and were unlikely to be misled. Because of that we concluded the claim was not misleading.
We investigated the claim under CAP Code (Edition 12) rules
3.1
3.1
Marketing communications must not materially mislead or be likely to do so.
and
3.3
3.3
Marketing communications must not mislead the consumer by omitting material information. They must not mislead by hiding material information or presenting it in an unclear, unintelligible, ambiguous or untimely manner.
Material information is information that the consumer needs to make informed decisions in relation to a product. Whether the omission or presentation of material information is likely to mislead the consumer depends on the context, the medium and, if the medium of the marketing communication is constrained by time or space, the measures that the marketer takes to make that information available to the consumer by other means.
(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.
2. Not upheld
We acknowledged that there would be emissions from electricity in powering the Ampera, but noted there was no industry or agreed standard to measure those emissions. We noted that General Motors had submitted all available emissions information for the Ampera in the course of the investigation, and had given specific context to their emissions claims for the Ampera. The ad clearly stated “Under normal driving conditions” and we considered that in that context readers would be aware the ad was referring to CO2 emissions that were emitted only when the car was being driven. We therefore considered the claim had been substantiated and was not misleading.
We investigated the claim under CAP Code (Edition 12) rules
3.1
3.1
Marketing communications must not materially mislead or be likely to do so.
and
3.3
3.3
Marketing communications must not mislead the consumer by omitting material information. They must not mislead by hiding material information or presenting it in an unclear, unintelligible, ambiguous or untimely manner.
Material information is information that the consumer needs to make informed decisions in relation to a product. Whether the omission or presentation of material information is likely to mislead the consumer depends on the context, the medium and, if the medium of the marketing communication is constrained by time or space, the measures that the marketer takes to make that information available to the consumer by other means.
(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
11.4
11.4
Marketers must base environmental claims on the full life cycle of the advertised product, unless the marketing communication states otherwise, and must make clear the limits of the life cycle. If a general claim cannot be justified, a more limited claim about specific aspects of a product might be justifiable. Marketers must ensure claims that are based on only part of the advertised product's life cycle do not mislead consumers about the product's total environmental impact.
(Environmental claims) but did not find it in breach.
Action
No further action necessary.
