Background

Summary of Council decision:

Two issues were investigated, both of which were Not upheld

Ad description

An ad on YouTube for JML’s “EverBrite”, a detachable outdoor light, seen on 12 January 2018. A man’s voice stated, “…EverBrite is solar powered … the solar technology charges the lithium ion battery during the day, then keeps EverBrite lit for up to 12 hours at night.” The ad later showed the light being placed over a garage door as the voice-over stated it was “Great for the garage”.

Issue

The complainant challenged whether the following claims were misleading and could be substantiated:

1. that the solar security lamp would work when placed under the overhang of a garage; and

2.. “keeps EverBrite lit for up to 12 hours at night”.

Response

1. John Mills Ltd t/a JML said the product did work under a garage overhang. The product mechanism was based on solar charging that collected light during daylight hours that in turn charged the battery, allowing it to work at night. They said the solar panel would charge at all light levels, but required daylight. JML said that unless an overhang was of very significant size, light would penetrate that type of area outdoors allowing the product to charge during day hours regardless of the season.

JML said that when editing the film they ensured all visuals were in line with the capabilities of the product, and were careful to include only outdoor overhangs under which the product would still work. They said that the demonstrations illustrated what they considered were typical outdoor settings.

JML said they ensured that the ad showed outdoor areas that were not completely closed off to light and that there were no major light obstructions, as no solar powered product would work in those situations. They said a basic level of light was required to work the product and that standard garage overhangs would provide enough light for the product to charge each day.

JML also submitted a testing report of EverBrite's basic battery charge times when installed in locations where its solar panel was not exposed to direct sunlight. The company that conducted the test said the solar panel would still charge the battery so long as the panel got some energy from the sun, although charging would be slower when not exposed to direct sun light.

2. JML said the amount of light the EverBrite produced was dependent on the amount of sunlight it was exposed to, which was why they made the claim "up to" 12 hours. They provided evidence regarding the size of the rechargeable battery and the amount of power the solar panel could absorb per hour.

JML said the product had two modes of function, dim and full light. An in-built light sensor in the EverBrite detected when it was dark at which point the dim mode would activate. The light would switch to full-light mode when motion was activated. Further evidence provided by JML stated how much power the unit consumed in dim and full-light mode. They said that even if the full-light mode was activated 15 times per hour for 12 hours there would still be power left in the battery.

Assessment

1. Not upheld

The ASA noted that the EverBrite lamp was shown stuck to a variety of walls and surfaces and that on more than one occasion it was attached to a surface directly beneath an overhang. We therefore considered that consumers would understand that the EverBrite was capable of working under a garage overhang, provided that it had some access to sunlight.

We acknowledged that if the light was placed beneath a particularly large overhang with no exposure to sunlight, the solar panel may not be able to convert light energy into rechargeable electricity. However, we considered that the ad did not depict any such scenario.

We assessed the battery charging tests provided by EverBrite. The tests which took place using six units, in one day, between 9.10 am and 6.10 pm in a shaded area, measured the amount of voltage that the EverBrite battery charged by. The units began with between 2.503 V and 2.11 V and finished with between 4.027 V and 4.136 V, meaning that each unit had charged during that period.

Because the evidence demonstrated that the EverBrite could charge while not in direct sunlight, we concluded that the claim that the solar security lamp would work when placed under the overhang of a garage had been substantiated and was therefore not misleading.

On that point we investigated 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  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

The ad showed the light working in a night-time setting while a man’s voice said that the light worked for up to 12 hours at night, and we therefore considered consumers would understand the claim “that solar technology charges the lithium ion battery during the day, then keeps EverBrite lit for up to 12 hours at night” to mean it would turn on briefly when motion was detected rather than full continuous light use.

We saw evidence that the EverBrite was able to work for 12 hours in dim mode and with frequent activations in full-light mode. Because consumers were likely to understand from the claim ad that EverBrite was able to light up whenever motion was detected over a 12-hour period at night as opposed to continuous full-light use for 12 hours, and JML provided evidence to demonstrate that was the case, we concluded that the claim had been substantiated and was not misleading.

On that point we investigated 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  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.

CAP Code (Edition 12)

3.1     3.7    


More on