Background
Summary of Council decision:
Two issues were investigated, both of which were upheld.
Ad description
A brochure that promoted Optima Energy Solutions' eRAD heating systems, included a number of examples of savings that could be achieved using the advertised product. The examples appeared beneath the heading "Estimated Heat Loss Calculation". One example stated "ESTIMATED SAVING FOR THE ENTIRE YEAR £1868.78" and "ACTUAL SAVING 82%". A second example stated "Estimated Heat Loss Calculation ... ESTIMATED SAVING FOR THE ENTIRE YEAR £547.42" and "ACTUAL SAVING 68%". A further example stated "ESTIMATED SAVING FOR THE ENTIRE YEAR £710.37" and "ACTUAL SAVING 71%*". The asterisk linked to text that stated "*Subject to terms and conditions. Please go to www.energy-optima.com for full details of our terms and conditions, disclaimers and assumptions". A testimonial on the eighth page of the brochure stated "The eRAD is a wonderful system. Our house has been a lot warmer for less money ... Love the look, love the heat and even more love the savings. 74% [sic]".
Text on the sixth page of the brochure stated "Don't just take our word for it ... You will also see savings examples from our Heat Loss Calculator produced by the statistical department at Leeds University". The page included a logo of the University of Leeds.
Issue
The complainant challenged whether the following claims were misleading and could be substantiated:
1. that consumers could achieve significant savings by using the eRAD system; and
2. "You will also see saving examples from our Heat Loss Calculator produced by the statistical department at Leeds University".
Response
1. & 2. Optima Energy Solutions Ltd said Leeds University were engaged directly by a third party to produce a heat loss calculator to verify the savings achieved by the eRAD System. They said the funding for that work was provided by Optima Energy Solutions. They said each heat loss calculation was specific to the customer and that the savings quoted in the ad related to the experiences of a number of their customers. They said they employed a third party to review the authenticity of the testimonials.
Optima Energy Solutions said they had been subject to an investigation by a third party, which considered whether the savings claims could be substantiated. They said the investigation resulted in no further action being taken.
Assessment
1. Upheld
The ASA noted the ad included a number of examples of the savings that could be achieved using the eRAD System. The savings quoted in the examples fell between a saving of 68% and 82%. In that context, we considered consumers would understand the ad to mean that consumers could achieve significant savings by using the eRAD System. Whilst we noted Optima Energy Solutions' comments that the testimonials had been subject to review by third parties, we had not seen robust documentary evidence to substantiate the savings claims, nor to demonstrate that the savings claims were representative of the savings consumers could expect to achieve using the eRAD System. In the absence of such evidence, we considered the savings claims had not been substantiated and were likely to mislead. We therefore concluded that the ad breached the Code on this point.
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), 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 3.45 3.45 Marketers must hold documentary evidence that a testimonial or endorsement used in a marketing communication is genuine, unless it is obviously fictitious, and hold contact details for the person who, or organisation that, gives it. (Testimonials).
2. Upheld
The complainant raised concerns that the Heat Loss Calculator had not been produced by the statistical department at Leeds University. We noted Optima Energy Solutions' comments that Leeds University were engaged by a third party to produce a Heat Loss Calculator to verify the savings achieved by the eRAD System. However, we had not seen robust documentary evidence to demonstrate that the Heat Loss Calculator had been produced by the statistical department at Leeds University. On that basis we considered the claim had not substantiated and was likely to mislead. We therefore concluded that the ad breached the Code on this point.
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).
Action
The ad must not appear again in its current form. We told Optima Energy Solutions Ltd to ensure they held robust documentary evidence to substantiate claims in future.
