Background
Summary of Council decision:
Three issues were investigated, all were Upheld.
Ad description
Claims on www.hydrogenuk.co.uk, promoting a fuel consumption system, were headlined "THE LATEST IN HHO FUEL SAVING TECHNOLOGY". Text stated "HHO is a system that allows you to reduce the fuel consumption in your HGV, Truck, Bus or Car at a very low cost. Simply use your normal fuel mixed with the HHO generated by our unit, this is a process called electrolysis. The HHO gas is then directed towards the engines [sic] combustion chamber, via the air intake manifold, where it mixes with the carbon based fuel (petrol, diesel, lpg) and there it ignites ... Included in the completed unit is the generator, which has been rigorously rigerously [sic] tested on haulage and public transport to give the required savings. All HHO generators are environmentally friendly as they reduce poisinous [sic] gasses such as C02 [sic] from the vehicles [sic] exhausts”.
The 'About Us' web page stated "With a great deal of research and development we built the new HHO Generator unit. Following on from this we trialled each size of unit in local commercial transport. Savings of between 20% to 30% in fuel costs were reported ...There are HHO generators and there are CED HHO generators. By choosing the CED HHO generator you will make a guaranteed saving everytime [sic] you fuel up."
Issue
The complainant challenged whether the following claims were misleading and could be substantiated:
1. "HHO is a system that allows you to reduce the fuel consumption in your HGV, Truck, Bus or Car at a very low cost" and "By choosing the CED HHO generator you will make a guaranteed saving everytime [sic] you fuel up", because she did not believe there was evidence that the system would reduce overall fuel consumption or cost;
2. "All HHO generators are environmentally friendly as they reduce poisinous [sic] gasses [sic] such as C02 [sic] from the vehicles exhausts [sic]", because she understood that CO2 was not technically poisonous and that using a mixture of hydrogen and oxygen would increase the emission of CO2;
3. "Following on from this we trialled each size of unit in local commercial transport. Savings of between 20% to 30% in fuel costs were reported", because she believed that the results did not appear to have been reached under controlled conditions and were therefore potentially inaccurate.
Response
1. & 2. CED UK Ltd provided a description of an experimental program using a multicylinder reciprocating engine and stated the results were compared to results for all gasoline. They provided a study entitled "Effect of hydroxy (HHO) gas addition on performance and exhaust emissions in compression ignition engines" dated 2010, and a NASA Technical note dated 1977, entitled “Emissions and Total Energy Consumption of a Multi-cylinder Piston Engine Running on Gasoline and a Hydrogen –Gasoline Mixture”.
3. They said they had fleet owners who were already benefitting from savings on fuel overheads with the technology and provided an article from the How Stuff Works website, entitled "How A Hydrogen-Boosted Gasoline Engine Works" which made reference to 20–30% savings in fuel.
Assessment
1. Upheld
The ASA noted that the ad stated "There are HHO generators and there are CED HHO generators" and considered that the claims therefore made a distinction between the effects of HHO generators in general and the efficacy of the advertisers' own product. We therefore considered that any supporting documentation should relate to tests on the advertisers' product.
We considered the claims "HHO is a system that allows you to reduce the fuel consumption in your HGV, Truck, Bus or Car at a very low cost" and "By choosing the CED HHO generator you will make a guaranteed saving everytime [sic] you fuel up", suggested that users would make cost savings, but noted we had not seen any comparative evidence showing that cost savings had been made by using the product.
We considered that the claim "By choosing the CED HHO generator you will make a guaranteed saving everytime [sic] you fuel up" also suggested that there would be an efficiency saving in terms of fuel consumption. The ASA took independent expert advice. We understood that the tests carried out were lacking in some essential experimental detail and did not provide credible evidence that any type of HHO generators' would reduce exhaust emissions from current technology diesel or petrol engines.
Because we understood that the documentation provided did not include comparative tests and results in relation to the advertised product itself and because the general test documentation provided was lacking in some experimental detail and relevant comparisons, we considered it was not sufficient to support the claims that the system would reduce overall fuel consumption or cost and concluded the claims were therefore misleading.
On that 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.
3.3
3.3
Marketing communications must not mislead the consumer by omitting material information. They must not mislead by hiding material information or presenting it in an unclear, unintelligible, ambiguous or untimely manner.
Material information is information that the consumer needs to make informed decisions in relation to a product. Whether the omission or presentation of material information is likely to mislead the consumer depends on the context, the medium and, if the medium of the marketing communication is constrained by time or space, the measures that the marketer takes to make that information available to the consumer by other means.
(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
3.11
3.11
Marketing communications must not mislead consumers by exaggerating the capability or performance of a product.
(Exaggeration).
2. Upheld
Although we acknowledged that the complainant believed that using a mixture of hydrogen and oxygen would increase the emission of CO2, we understood that combusting hydrogen and oxygen by themselves would not produce CO2 and that any increase in CO2 as a result of burning hydrogen and oxygen in the presence of petrol or diesel fuel would have to be caused by the hydrogen and oxygen adversely affecting the combustion of the hydrocarbon fuel.
We considered that readers would infer from the claim "All HHO generators are environmentally friendly as they reduce poisinous gasses [sic] such as C02 [sic] from the vehicles exhausts [sic]" that the use of HHO generators, including the advertisers' product would reduce CO2 and exhaust contaminates, and therefore that that claim should be supported by evidence.
We understood that there were flaws in the testing and, on that basis, that the evidence provided was unlikely to be sufficient to support any efficacy claims. We noted that there was no evidence showing the effects of other HHO generators or that the fuel consumption results presented were different from those which would be reasonably be expected from a properly operating diesel engine and that there was also no data provided which described any testing of the application of an HHO generator to a petrol engine. We therefore considered the testing documentation provided was not sufficient to demonstrate that the HHO generator used in the tests had achieved reduced exhaust emissions and because there was insufficient evidence for the claim, we concluded it was misleading.
On that 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.
3.3
3.3
Marketing communications must not mislead the consumer by omitting material information. They must not mislead by hiding material information or presenting it in an unclear, unintelligible, ambiguous or untimely manner.
Material information is information that the consumer needs to make informed decisions in relation to a product. Whether the omission or presentation of material information is likely to mislead the consumer depends on the context, the medium and, if the medium of the marketing communication is constrained by time or space, the measures that the marketer takes to make that information available to the consumer by other means.
(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
3.11
3.11
Marketing communications must not mislead consumers by exaggerating the capability or performance of a product.
(Exaggeration).
3. Upheld
We noted we had not seen evidence of the local commercial transport trials or any comparative testing and did not consider that an online article which made a general reference was sufficient evidence to support a cost savings claim. As set out under point 1, we considered that the testing documentation which had been provided was not sufficient to support any efficiency or savings claims made in relation to the advertisers' product.
We therefore concluded that the "20% and 30% in fuel costs" savings claims were unsupported and likely to mislead.
On that 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.
3.3
3.3
Marketing communications must not mislead the consumer by omitting material information. They must not mislead by hiding material information or presenting it in an unclear, unintelligible, ambiguous or untimely manner.
Material information is information that the consumer needs to make informed decisions in relation to a product. Whether the omission or presentation of material information is likely to mislead the consumer depends on the context, the medium and, if the medium of the marketing communication is constrained by time or space, the measures that the marketer takes to make that information available to the consumer by other means.
(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
3.11
3.11
Marketing communications must not mislead consumers by exaggerating the capability or performance of a product.
(Exaggeration).
Action
The claims must not appear again in their current form. We told the advertisers to ensure they held robust evidence in support of their claims.
