Background
Summary of Council decision:
Two issues were investigated, both of which were Upheld.
Ad description
A TV ad for CGON, a manufacturer of a device that was fitted to car engines, seen on 17 May 2018, stated "CGON's range of fuel enhancement systems could cut fuel bills by between 10 and 20% and in many [sic] CGON helps stop vehicles failing their MOTs on emissions".
Issue
The complainant challenged whether the claims:
1. "CGON's range of fuel enhancement systems could cut fuel bills by between 10 and 20%"; and
2. "... in many CGON helps stop vehicles failing their MOTs on emissions" were misleading and could be substantiated.
Response
1. & 2. Replying on behalf of themselves and CGON Ltd, Clearcast said the claim was worded cautiously rather than absolutely. Clearcast supplied the substantiation they had received and details of their exchanges with an external expert, who noted that CGON's testing had covered a range of vehicles.
Assessment
1. Upheld
The ASA considered consumers would interpret the claim to mean that, by using the device, there was a good chance that all or most vehicles powered by a petrol or diesel engine would obtain an increase in fuel efficiency of between 10 and 20% under normal driving conditions, meaning more miles per litre of fuel.
We noted that the evidence for the claim that CGON had supplied to Clearcast included reports of laboratory testing of engines conducted by engineering departments in universities in Turkey, India and Egypt. The reports described how testing had taken place on freestanding engines (not ones installed in vehicles) and concluded that a diesel, petrol or dual fuel engine (depending on which was tested) ran more efficiently when adding hydrogen to the fuel mix (the principle used in the CGON device). One of the reports stated that testing had taken place on an engine from a Skoda Felicia 1.3 GLXi car and concluded that fuel consumption was reduced by up to 34%. Another report stated that testing had taken place on a high speed, single cylinder Lombardini LGA-340 gasoline engine at an operating speed of 3,000 rpm, with a reduction in fuel consumption of an unspecified amount. The third report stated that testing had been carried out on a 553cc single cylinder constant speed (1,500 rpm) diesel Kirloskar engine and found a reduction in fuel consumption of 6–12%. The age of the engines was not specified, but we noted that the Skoda Felicia had not been produced since 2001. We noted there was considerable variation in the degree of improvement in fuel efficiency between the reports. We considered the variation in results suggested there were other factors that contributed to the degree of improved efficiency that could be obtained.
CGON had also supplied Clearcast with a document that referred to a 97.6 mile journey taken in a 1.5 litre turbo diesel Nissan Qashqai test car where a 12% improvement in fuel efficiency had been achieved by using the device. The document itself stated that improvements in fuel efficiency relied “on multiple factors, such as atmospheric conditions, road conditions, drive style and load”. The age of the vehicle and the driving conditions were not stated.
The documentation also listed the experiences of 12 users of the device in vehicles registered between 2006 and 2016, who reported savings in fuel of between 14% and 35%.
We considered that the age and type of engine and car in which it was fitted, driving conditions, driving style and atmospheric conditions were all factors that were likely to affect the outcome of fuel efficiency tests when the device was used. The testing supplied had been carried out on a limited range of engines/vehicles including some that were very old and others for which the age was not stated. Some of the evidence clearly did not reflect normal driving conditions, such as the testing on engines at constant speeds, and it was not possible to determine the driving conditions experienced by the 12 users who provided testimonials. We considered the reports and other documentation had assessed a very limited range of circumstances only, and that the results, which varied significantly, could not reliably be extrapolated to demonstrate that there was a good chance that all or most vehicles powered by a petrol or diesel engine would obtain an increase in fuel efficiency of between 10 and 20% under normal driving conditions with the device installed.
We therefore concluded that the claim had not been substantiated and was likely to mislead.
On that point, the ad breached BCAP Code rules 3.1 3.1 Advertisements must not materially mislead or be likely to do so. (Misleading advertising) and 3.9 3.9 Broadcasters must hold documentary evidence to prove claims that the audience is 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 considered consumers would interpret the claim to mean that, by using the device, there was a good chance that, if the emissions from their vehicle had previously been above the level necessary to pass the MOT, the product would bring the level of emissions down sufficiently to pass.
As above, the evidence that CGON had supplied to Clearcast included reports of laboratory testing of engines conducted by engineering departments in universities in Turkey, India and Egypt which described how testing had been conducted on freestanding engines. Testing had been done on both a diesel and a petrol engine and found that, when the device was used, carbon monoxide emissions were reduced by an average of 13.5% and hydrocarbons by an average of 5% on an in-line 4 direct-injection diesel engine. The petrol engine testing had taken place on a high speed, single cylinder Lombardini LGA-340 gasoline engine, from which the university inferred that carbon monoxide and hydrocarbon emissions decreased as the percentage of hydrogen in the fuel blend increased. Testing on a Skoda Felicia 1.3 GLXi car petrol engine reported that, when hydrogen was added to the fuel mix, emissions of nitrogen oxide were reduced to 15%, carbon monoxide to 18% and hydrocarbons to 14%.
Emissions Analytics testing on a 2012 Nissan Qashqai 1.6 diesel 130bhp car had measured diesel particulates and five other types of emission in urban driving and at 50 and 70 mph. The results showed a reduction in diesel particulates at all three speeds, with all the other emissions reduced in urban driving. However, at 50 and 70 mph, only some emissions had decreased, with some showing an increase at those speeds.
Also included were certificates of the kind issued in MOT tests for three different vehicles: a diesel Citroen Berlingo van, which would have been up to two years old at the time and with 42,956 miles on the clock; an unspecified LPG vehicle, which would have been up to one-year-old at the time and with 33,445 miles; and a Mitsubishi L200 pick-up truck which would have been 12 to 13 years old with 97,622 miles. Each vehicle had been tested first without the device fitted and then with it fitted, with a lower emission reading shown when the device was fitted. The evidence also referred to reduced emission readings in MOT testing for eight diesel vehicles and eight petrol vehicles and included extracts from several testimonials from customers who had fitted the device.
With the university testing, we considered that the variation in the way the results had been reported meant it was not possible to understand whether the findings were consistent and whether they indicated that a vehicle that would previously have failed an emissions test in the UK had passed after the device was introduced. The Emissions Analytics testing had been conducted on one vehicle only, but the results were reported in sufficient detail to show that, at speeds of 50 and 70mph, only some emissions decreased, and that some had in fact increased. The MOT certificate testing had been conducted on a limited range of vehicles only. As the vehicles had passed the emissions test on both situations, albeit with lower emissions when the device was fitted, it did not show that the device had stopped the vehicles failing the MOT on emissions.
We acknowledged that, overall, the documentation had looked at the results of using the device in a variety of vehicles. However, for the reasons set out above, the results did not show that there was a good chance the device would reduce the emissions from a vehicle that would previously have failed an MOT by an amount that was sufficient for it to then pass.
We therefore concluded that the claim had not been substantiated and was likely to mislead.
On that point, the ad breached BCAP Code rules 3.1 3.1 Advertisements must not materially mislead or be likely to do so. (Misleading advertising) and 3.9 3.9 Broadcasters must hold documentary evidence to prove claims that the audience is 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 the form complained of. We told CGON Ltd to ensure their ads did not mislead by, for example, claiming there was a good chance that, by using their product, all or most vehicles would obtain a particular increase in fuel efficiency, or that engine emissions would be reduced sufficiently for a vehicle to pass its MOT, unless they held adequate evidence.
