Ad description
Claims on www.tapcentre.com, a website for a tap company, seen in March 2012, featured a number of products for sale. The product description included the text "WRAS APPROVED PRODUCT".
Issue
WRAS Ltd challenged whether the claim "WRAS APPROVED PRODUCT" was misleading, because they understood that none of the company's products had received approval.
Response
Online Trading House Ltd t/a TapCentre.com (TapCentre) stated that the text "WRAS APPROVED PRODUCT" would be removed from the website and they would not use the claims until and unless they had the relevant approval documentation. They said that all of the claims were not initially removed due to an oversight when amending the website.
They said they used the manufacturer Paini, which used WRAS-approved products, and WRAS were aware that they used Paini. TapCentre understood that the components of their products had WRAS approval, but because they were rebranding the tap under their own brand, WRAS had indicated that they required additional payment from TapCentre in order to state that the manufacturer's products were WRAS-approved. They said they had originally advertised that the products were WRAS-approved, because they believed the components were WRAS-approved and had thought that would be acceptable.
Assessment
Upheld
The ASA considered that the claim "WRAS APPROVED PRODUCT" in a list of specifications about a particular product would be understood to mean that that listed product was approved by the Water Regulations Advisory Scheme (WRAS). We noted that TapCentre maintained that the components were WRAS-approved and had originally used the claim "WRAS APPROVED PRODUCT" on that basis. However, we understood that WRAS did not offer approval to products on the basis of the approval given to the components.
We understood that TapCentre intended to seek WRAS approval and the relevant documentation, but noted that TapCentre had not been able to support the claims that their products or the components were currently WRAS-approved.
We welcomed TapCentre's action to remove the claims. We noted, however, that the claims had not all been initially removed. We considered that the advertisers should have taken care to ensure that all the references to "WRAS APPROVED PRODUCT" were removed from the website unless they had the relevant documentation to support the claims.
Because we had not seen evidence to support the claim "WRAS APPROVED PRODUCT" in relation to TapCentre's listed products, we concluded that the claim was likely to mislead.
The claims 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 3.50 3.50 Marketing communications must not display a trust mark, quality mark or equivalent without the necessary authorisation. Marketing communications must not claim that the marketer (or any other entity referred to), the marketing communication or the advertised product has been approved, endorsed or authorised by any public or other body if it has not or without complying with the terms of the approval, endorsement or authorisation. (Endorsements and testimonials).
Action
The claims must not appear again in their current form.
