Background
Summary of Council decision:
Three issues were investigated, all of which were Upheld.
Ad description
Ads for three QuantoGram products on the website https://goodhealthnaturally.com were seen on 10 August 2020:
a. Text stated “Electromagnetic Radiation (EMF) Harmoniser – Wifi Harmoniser – QuantoGram SafeHouse £165.00 … provides you and your family protection for your whole house and office from various electrical smogs caused by Electrical Magnetic Frequencies (EMF) …”.
b. The ad showed an illustration of a car covered with green leaves with more green leaves coming out of the exhaust. Text stated “QuantoGram PCD £250.00 … Our QuantoGram PCD (Pure Combustion Device) uses QuantoGram Technology for Petrol-Diesel vehicles to lower Fuel/Emissions and gives higher Performance … Reduces Fuel Consumption – Reduces Engine Vibration – Improves Horsepower and Torque – Improves Acceleration – May Reduce Toxic Emissions …”.
c. The ad showed an image of a mobile phone next to a photograph of a man holding a phone to his ear. Text stated “QuantoGram HoloGuard £29.95 – QuantoGram HoloGuard keeps you safe from Electro Magnetic Frequencies and Electro Magnetic Radiation (EMF/EMR) when applied to: Mobile Phones, Tablets, Laptops, Cordless Phones, Hands Free Phones, WIFI Routers, Bluetooth Devices, Cell Phone Towers, and hotspots. Authorities are now agreeing that all digital wireless devices are a health risk. This product is not sold on a trial or return basis”.
Issue
The complainant challenged whether the following claims were misleading and could be substantiated:
1. that the EMF Harmoniser “provides you and your family protection for your whole house and office from various electrical smogs caused by Electrical Magnetic Frequencies (EMF)”;
2. that the QuantoGram PCD “lower[s] Fuel/Emissions and gives higher Performance”; and
3. that the QuantoGram HoloGuard “keeps you safe from Electro Magnetic Frequencies and Electro Magnetic Radiation (EMF/EMR)”.
Response
GHN Mechant Services Ltd acknowledged the complaint but did not provide a substantive response to the ASA’s enquiries.Assessment
The ASA was concerned by GHN Merchant Services lack of substantive response and apparent disregard for the Code, which was a breach of CAP Code (Edition 12) rule 1.7 (Unreasonable delay). We reminded them of their responsibility to provide a substantive response to our enquiries and told them to do so in future.
1. Upheld
The ASA considered that consumers would understand the claims that the EMF Harmoniser “provides you and your family protection for your whole house and office from various electrical smogs caused by Electrical Magnetic Frequencies (EMF)”, to mean that EMF caused “electrical smogs” which were harmful and the device would protect consumers against it. However, we received no evidence from the advertiser to substantiate that electrical smogs caused by EMF were harmful and that the device offered consumers protection against it. In the absence of such evidence, we concluded that the claim had not been substantiated and was therefore misleading.
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 considered that the claim, which stated that the QuantoGram PCD device “lower[s] Fuel/Emissions and gives higher Performance”, would be understood by consumers to mean that when installed the device lowered fuel emissions and provided better performance in petrol and diesel vehicles. However, we received no evidence from the advertiser to substantiate those claims. In the absence of such evidence, we concluded that the claims had not been substantiated and were therefore misleading. 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).
3.Upheld
We also considered that consumers would understand the claim that the QuantoGram HoloGuard “keeps you safe from Electro Magnetic Frequencies and Electro Magnetic Radiation (EMF/EMR)” to mean that EMF and EMR were harmful and that the HoloGuard would protect consumers against EMF and EMR emitted from devices such as those referenced in the ad. However, we received no evidence from the advertiser to substantiate that EMF or EMR emitted by such devices were harmful or that the HoloGuard would provide protection to consumers. In the absence of such evidence, we concluded that the claim had not been substantiated and was misleading.
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 the form complained of. We told GHN Merchant Services Ltd not to repeat the claims unless they held adequate substantiation.
