Background
This ruling forms part of a wider piece of work on ads for mini-coolers. The ad was identified for investigation following intelligence gathered by our Active Ad Monitoring system, which uses AI to proactively search for online ads that might break the rules. See also related rulings published on 26 November 2025.
Summary of Council decision:
Two issues were investigated, both of which were Upheld.
Ad description
A paid-for YouTube ad for Hydrochill, seen in June 2025, featured footage of a portable cooler being designed, assembled and used. The video’s voiceover stated, “This brilliant way to cool any room fast for almost zero cost is taking the world by storm […] This revolutionary portable air cooling device can cool homes fast, and it uses a fraction of the energy that commercial air conditioners require, reducing monthly electricity bills […] his latest invention is saving homeowners thousands in electricity bills.”
Issue
The ASA challenged whether claims regarding the product’s:
- cooling abilities and cost effectiveness were misleading; and
- performance and cost effectiveness compared to air conditioning were misleading.
Response
Hydrochill did not respond to the ASA’s enquiries.
Assessment
The ASA was concerned by Hydrochill’s lack of response and apparent disregard for the Code, which was a breach of CAP Code (Edition 12) rule 1.7 (Unreasonable delay). We reminded them of their responsibility to respond promptly to our enquiries, and told them to do so in future.
1. Upheld
The ad stated that the product could “cool any room fast for almost zero cost” and “can cool homes fast”, and claimed that it could save “thousands in electricity bills”. The ASA considered that consumers would interpret those claims to mean that Hydrochill’s mini cooler could rapidly cool any typical room in a house in an economical and cost-effective manner.
Hydrochill provided no evidence, however, that the product was effective at rapidly cooling down rooms, or that the product could save consumers money. We understood that it was highly unlikely that a small portable electric fan cooler would be a viable source of efficient cooling for most rooms. We had also seen no evidence to support the cost savings claims. We therefore concluded that the claims had not been substantiated, and were misleading.
On that point, the ad breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1 (Misleading advertising), 3.7 (Substantiation) and 3.11 (Exaggeration).
2. Upheld
The CAP Code required that comparisons with identifiable competitors must not mislead, or be likely to mislead, consumers about the advertised product. The ad included the claim that Hydrochill’s cooler used “a fraction of the energy that commercial air conditioners require”. We therefore considered that consumers would interpret the ad as promoting a product that provided a viable, cheaper alternative to other cooling systems, including air conditioning units.
We expected to see robust documentary evidence that substantiated the claim and explained the basis for the comparison, and how it related to both Hydrochill’s product and all relevant competitors. However, Hydrochill provided no evidence that their product could supply the equivalent cooling capabilities of any other cooling systems, such as traditional air conditioning systems, at a cheaper price.
As above, we considered it was highly unlikely that a small portable electric fan cooler would be as effective as traditional air conditioning systems in cooling a property, or that it would be a cost-effective alternative to such systems. We therefore concluded that the comparison claim had not been substantiated, and was misleading.
On that point, the ad breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1 (Misleading advertising), 3.7 (Substantiation), 3.11 (Exaggeration) and 3.33 (Comparisons with identifiable competitors).
Action
The ad must not appear again in its current form. We told Hydrochill not to mislead by exaggerating their product’s cooling abilities and cost effectiveness, and not to state or imply that their mini cooler products provided a viable and economical alternative to air conditioning. Specifically, we told Hydrochill not to repeat claims that their products could “cool any room fast for almost zero cost”, “can cool homes fast”, save consumers “thousands in electricity bills” and that they used “a fraction of the energy that commercial air conditioners require”, or make similar unsubstantiated claims. We referred the matter to the CAP compliance team.
