Background
This Ruling forms part of a wider piece of work on electric vehicle mileage claims, identified for investigation following complaints received. See also related rulings published on 20 December.
Ad description
A website and e-brochure for Mercedes Benz, seen on 1 June:
a. The website https://www.mercedes-benz.co.uk/ stated “Highlights … EQC”. Below this was the text, “Introducing the EQC … All-electric range of up to 254*”. Qualifying text below stated “*The indicated values were determined according to the prescribed measurement method – Worldwide Harmonised Light Vehicle Test Procedure (WLTP) …”. At the bottom of the page was a click-through link labelled “Download ebrochure”.
(b) The e-brochure stated, under the heading “Model prices” “EQC?400 4MATIC … Electric range 254 miles – WLTP¹”. Qualifying text at the bottom of the page stated “¹The indicated values were determined according to the prescribed measurement method – Worldwide Harmonised Light Vehicle Test Procedure (WLTP) … Battery Electric Vehicles (BEV) require mains electricity for charging, range figures determined with the battery fully charged”. Text at the top of the page stated “CO?¹,*”. Smaller text at the bottom of the page stated “*Figures shown are for comparability purposes; only compare with other cars tested to the same technical procedures. Figures may not reflect real life driving results, which will depend upon a number of factors including the starting charge of the battery”.
Issue
The complainant challenged whether the claims “EQC?400 4MATIC … Electric range 254 miles – WLTP¹” and “Introducing the EQC…All-electric range of up to 254*” in ads (a) and (b) respectively were misleading.Response
Mercedes-Benz UK Ltd (Mercedes) told us that the 254-mile range figure in the ads was based on a test starting with a 100% charge in line with WLTP requirements it was not possible from the testing to provide any mileage range at anything other than 100%. They said that if the customer did not need to travel that distance, then it was recommended they only charge the battery to 80% to maximise the life of the battery. The owner’s manual said to only charge the battery to 100 percent when required.
Mercedes explained that in the e-brochure, it was caveated that the claim be used for comparison purposes only. This allowed consumers to easily compare the range of the EQC with other vehicles, since WLTP mileage range testing was standardised as measuring mileage from an initial charge of 100%.
Assessment
Upheld
The CAP Code stated that marketing communications must not mislead the consumer by omitting material information and must state significant limitations and qualifications.
Ad (a) stated, “Introducing the EQC…All-electric range of up to 254*”. Next to that further text said, “Charge in approx. 40 minutes**” and small print below stated “** … Times are from 10-80% charge”. The website clarified that the mileage was based on the WLTP standard. However, while some readers may have understood the term and what it represented, a significant number would not. It was not clear that the standard was to be used for comparison only or that the range was based on a 100% battery charge. In addition, because it said that the charge time was approximately 40 minutes and that was based on charging from 10% to 80%, consumers were likely to understand that the 254-mile range was routinely achievable and could be completed on 80% charge.
Ad (b) stated “EQC?400 4MATIC … Electric range 254 miles – WLTP¹ …” and was qualified with footnote text to explain that the range advertised was achieved through a testing protocol and stated “¹… range figures determined with the battery fully charged”. It additionally stated “*Figures shown are for comparison purposes … Figures may not reflect real life driving results, which will depend upon a number of factors including the starting charge of the battery”. However, that claim began with an asterisk in the text, which indicated it qualified a linked claim. A separate category “CO?¹,*” at the top of the page, included an asterisk, whereas the mileage range figure did not. We therefore considered that consumers who followed the qualifying link would understand that it related to the CO2 emissions of the vehicle, rather than to its mileage range. Consumers were likely to understand from the information provided that the EQC could complete 254 miles starting on a 100% charge and, in the absence of any further qualifying information, that charging to 100% and achieving a 254-mile range was typical and representative of the car.
The ASA acknowledged Mercedes’ explanation that they could only provide a mileage range with the car starting at 100% charge because that was how the WLTP tested it. However, in the absence of information to explain that the mileage figures were to be used for comparison purposes only and based on testing conditions, rather than real-world driving, readers were likely to understand it as representative. In addition, we understood that consumers were not advised to charge the car to 100%, since that was detrimental to the battery. We considered that the fact that the mileage figure was based on a battery charged to 100%, which was not representative of the vehicle’s recommended capability in use, was material information which should have been made clear.
Given that the website implied that the range figure was based on an 80% charge, rather than 100%, and material information about the unrepresentative basis of the 100% charge range figure did not appear in the website or e-brochure, we concluded that the ads were misleading.
The ads breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1 and 3.3 (Misleading advertising), 3.9 (Qualification).
Action
The ads must not appear again in the form complained about. We told Mercedes-Benz UK Ltd to ensure that future marketing communications stated significant limitations and qualifications, did not omit material information about the mileage achievable in a particular vehicle, and made clear the basis of any mileage range.
