Background
Summary of Council decision:
Four issues were investigated, all of which were Upheld.
Ad description
A paid-for online display ad and a landing page on the website techdiscountzone.com, for InstaHeat, a plug-in mini heater, seen in September 2022:
a. The paid-for ad, seen on a newspaper website, included an image of a hand holding a plug-in heater, and stated “InstaHeat. With This Trick You Can Heat Almost For Free This Winter”.
b. The landing page had the headline, “This is How Thousands of Brits are Heating up Their Homes and Slashing Electric Bill”. Further text said, “Meet the InstaHeat. A convection ceramic heater with an incredible 99.8% efficiency … It heats up any mid sized room very quickly. No other heater is this efficient, but what makes the InstaHeat special is it's price, ultra-compact design and portability … Wait while this powerful device heats the entire room, car, RV, garage, etc ... Up to 500 square feet … Save Money - The InstaHeat will save you hundreds of dollars in electricity … Does it have a UL, ETL label from Intertek, or certification from CSA international safety? Yes, it does. The InstaHeat is tested and approved for home safety by the top regarded institutions … With winter around the corner, the InstaHeat is the cheapest and best way to stay warm and comfortable.
Issue
The ASA challenged whether the following claims in ads (a) and (b) were misleading and could be substantiated:
1. “With This Trick You Can Heat Almost For Free This Winter”, “Save Money - The InstaHeat will save you hundreds of dollars in electricity” and “InstaHeat is the cheapest and best way to stay warm and comfortable”.
2. “A convection ceramic heater with an incredible 99.8% efficiency”.
3. “Wait while this powerful device heats the entire room, car, RV, garage, etc ... Up to 500 square feet”.
4. “The InstaHeat is tested and approved for home safety by the top regarded institutions”.
Response
Label Products BV did not respond to the ASA's enquiries.
Assessment
The ASA was concerned by Label Products BV’s lack of response and apparent disregard for the Code, which was a breach of CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 1.7 1.7 Any unreasonable delay in responding to the ASA's enquiries will normally be considered a breach of the Code. (Unreasonable delay). We reminded them of their responsibility to respond promptly to our enquiries and told them to do so in future.
1. Upheld
Ad (a) stated that, “With This Trick You Can Heat Almost For Free This Winter”. Further to that ad (b) stated that, “Save Money - The InstaHeat will save you hundreds of dollars in electricity” and “InstaHeat is the cheapest and best way to stay warm and comfortable”. The ASA considered that consumers would therefore interpret the ads as promoting a product that provided a viable alternative to other heating systems, including gas central heating, and that provided heating more economically (“cheapest”). We also considered that the ads presented the heater as providing an economical source of heating which could effectively heat a typical room or home. This was further emphasised by the reference in ad (b) to the heater being “powerful”.
We sought a view from the Energy Saving Trust. They stated that if someone wanted to heat a whole house then gas central heating, compared to single electric heaters, were preferable because gas was currently cheaper than electricity and because central heating radiators were able to heat rooms just as effectively by creating natural convection currents. They said that was especially the case with central heating with a full set of heating controls.
With regards to heating single rooms they said due to the relative price of electricity it would likely be cheaper to run one radiator from the gas central heating, than an electric heater continuously. They explained that even homes with electric heating, typically had electric storage heaters that could use the Economy7 tariff during off peak hours, which would be cheaper than the standard electricity tariff the advertiser’s product would run off. They also stated that a single small electric fan heater would be unlikely to be able to supply the amount of heat needed for a typical sized living room or kitchen. Multiple electric heaters would be required to provide comfort levels equivalent to a central heating system, in any home except a small single room apartment.
Ads (a) and (b) made no distinction between heating single rooms or a whole house and made an indirect comparison with all heating systems. We understood that it was highly unlikely that a small (in this case plug-in) electric heater would be a viable alternative source of sufficient heating for most households.
Label Products BV had produced no evidence that their product could supply the equivalent heating capabilities of any other heating system, including gas central heating, either in a single room or in a whole house, at a cheaper price and therefore save consumers money. They had also provided no evidence that the heater provided an economical or the “cheapest” form of heating which could effectively heat a typical room or home. We understood that it was highly unlikely that a small (in this case plug-in) electric heater would be a viable source of sufficient heating for most households, and that the heat provided would not be “powerful”. We therefore concluded that the claims had not been substantiated and that the ads 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 3.11 3.11 Marketing communications must not mislead consumers by exaggerating the capability or performance of a product. (Exaggeration).
2., 3. & 4. Upheld
The CAP Code stated that, 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.
Label Products BV had produced no evidence to support the claims that the heater was 99.8% efficient; that it could heat “the entire room, car, RV, garage [...] Up to 500 square feet”; or that it had been tested or approved by “top regarded institutions”. We therefore concluded that the claims had not been substantiated and were likely to mislead.
On those points the ad 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).
Action
The ads must not appear again in their current form. We told Label Products BV not to state or imply that their mini heater provided a viable alternative to other heating systems, including central heating or that it provided economical or cheap heating, including by not repeating the claims, “You Can Heat Almost For Free This Winter”, “Save Money - The InstaHeat will save you hundreds of dollars in electricity” and “InstaHeat is the cheapest and best way to stay warm and comfortable” or similar claims in future. In addition, we told them to ensure that adequate evidence was held to support all objective claims, and not to repeat the claims “99.8% efficiency”, could heat “Up to 500 square feet” and “tested and approved for home safety by the top regarded institutions”. We referred the matter to the CAP compliance team.
