Background
Summary of Council decision:
Two issues were investigated, both of which were Upheld.
Ad description
A paid-for Facebook ad for a cordless pressure washer product, seen in April 2026. The ad featured the text “No tap? No plug? No problem. The M70 PRO gives you 60 bars of power – wherever you are. From cars to patios, balconies to bikes, just dip the hose in a bucket and spray. Cordless, pressure-packed and Makita-compatible. [Hand pointing emoji] Blast away dirt – no hose, no cables, no hassle”.
An accompanying video showed the product in use. It included clips of heavily soiled vehicles, patios, wheelie bins and gutters being cleaned with a powerful jet of water. A voice-over stated, “[…] Trusted by more than 15,000 UK homeowners and adventurers rated 4.9 stars out of 5. Compact, durable and easy to use, backed by our 30-day money back guarantee so you can try it yourself completely risk free.”
Issue
The ASA challenged whether the:
1. ad misleadingly exaggerated the functionality and performance of the product; and
2. claims “trusted by more than 15,000 UK homeowners” and “rated 4.9 stars out of 5” were misleading.
Response
YN Netcom Ltd t/a BeeHomie did not respond to the ASA’s enquiries.
Assessment
The ASA was concerned by YN Netcom Ltd’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 provide a response to our enquiries and told them to do so in the future.
1. Upheld
We considered that consumers would understand from the claims “the M70 PRO gives you 60 bars of power”, “just dip the hose in a bucket and spray. Cordless, pressure-packed and Makita compatible” and “blast away dirt – no hose, no cables, no hassle” that the product was easy to use, compatible with popular power-tool brands, and capable of delivering a powerful level of cleaning performance comparable to traditional pressure washers without the need for a hose or plug. We considered that impression was reinforced by the video which showed various heavily soiled objects being cleaned with a powerful jet of water, and that consumers were likely to understand that the product could achieve the cleaning results shown. We therefore expected BeeHomie to hold evidence to demonstrate that was the case.
We had not seen any evidence regarding the performance and use of the product, or any information to demonstrate that it was compatible with other power-tool brands. In the absence of adequate substantiation to demonstrate that the product could deliver the cleaning performance shown in the ad, we considered the ad exaggerated the functionality of the product and concluded it was 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 ad included the claims “trusted by more than 15,000 UK homeowners” and “rated 4.9 stars out of 5”. We considered consumers would understand those claims to mean that the product had been purchased by over 15,000 UK consumers, and held an average rating of 4.9 out of 5 based on genuine customer reviews.
We had received no evidence from BeeHomie to demonstrate how many UK consumers had purchased the product, or to prove that the 4.9 rating was genuine. However, we noted that at the time the ad was seen, BeeHomie had received approximately two hundred reviews and held a rating of 1.5 out of 5 on a third-party review website.
Because we had not seen evidence that the BeeHomie M70 PRO had been purchased by 15,000 UK consumers or that it had genuinely achieved a rating of 4.9 out of 5, we concluded that the ad was misleading.
On that point, the ad breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1 (Misleading advertising) and 3.7 (Substantiation).
Action
The ad must not appear again in its current form. We told YN Netcom Ltd t/a BeeHomie to ensure their ads did not misleadingly exaggerate the functionality of their products in the future, for example, by stating or implying that their product’s performance was comparable to that of a traditional pressure washer if that was not the case. We also told them not to claim nor imply they held a high rating based on genuine customer reviews if they did not hold evidence to demonstrate that was the case. We referred the matter to CAP’s Compliance team.
