Background
Summary of Council decision:
Two issues were investigated, both of which were Upheld.
Ad description
A regional press ad, for a water softener system, stated "[They] decided to take control of their hard water problems with EWT's Gold Series, removing 100% of limescale from their home forever! ... ". The ad included two pictures of an electrical element, one covered with lime scale and one shown without. Similar pictures of a tap and a boiler cylinder were also included.
Issue
A reader challenged whether:
1. the claim "removing 100% of limescale" was misleading and could be substantiated; and
2. the pictures, which he understood were 'before' and 'after' images, were genuine.
Response
1. EW Technologies Ltd said their water softeners removed calcium and magnesium ions from water systems, which when heated formed limescale on kettles and appliances. They explained that the life of a heating element in unsoftened water was likely to be shortened due to a scale build up increasing the operating temperature for the element. They explained that the Water Quality Association's Softened Water Benefits Study stated that the average rate of scale build up in electric storage water heaters using unsoftened water was about 907 g/year (2.00 lb/y), whereas the scale build up using soft water was about 14 g/y (0.03 Ib/y). EW Technologies said the amount was negligible and equated to a 98% reduction in limescale. They provided the testimonial of the couple featured in the ad, which they believed also supported the claim.
2. EW Technologies said the images in the ad were elements with and without limescale. They were not intended to be 'before' or 'after' pictures and were therefore not labelled as such.
Assessment
1. Upheld
The ASA understood that water softeners turned hard water soft by removing virtually all the alkaline earth ions in exchange for sodium ('salt') ions and help to reduce lime scale. However, we saw no evidence from EW Technologies to show that the advertised Gold Series water softener system worked in that way or that it would be able to remove 100% of existing limescale or future build up as claimed.
Although the testimonial mentioned that the couple featured in the ad believed there had been a reduction in their system's limescale, we noted that testimonials alone did not constitute adequate evidence to back objective claims if they were not accompanied by robust independent evidence to support the views made within the testimonial. Because we saw no evidence to substantiate the claim that the EWT Gold Series water softener system removed 100% of limescale, we concluded that the claim was misleading.
On this point, 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).
2. Upheld
We understood that the pictures were simply intended to show the items with and without limescale. However, the items were identically positioned in both photographs, which gave the impression that they represented the same objects 'before' and 'after' treatment and therefore misleadingly implied that the treatment would rectify limescale damage to the level shown in the pictures. Because that was not the case, we concluded that the pictures gave a misleading impression of the efficacy of the water softening treatment.
On this point, 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 3.11 3.11 Marketing communications must not mislead consumers by exaggerating the capability or performance of a product. (Exaggeration).
Action
The ad must not appear again in its current form. We told EW Technologies to ensure that they held robust documentary evidence to support efficacy claims for the water softening systems they advertised. We also told them to ensure that photographs did not give a misleading impression of the efficacy of the product.
