Background
This Ruling forms part of a wider piece of work on electric vehicle advertising and environmental claims. The ad was identified for investigation following intelligence gathered by our Active Ad Monitoring system, which uses AI to proactively search for online ads that might break the rules.
Ad description
A paid-for Meta ad for Mazda seen on 31 May 2024 featured an image of the Mazda2 Hybrid car, text stated “The Mazda2 Hybrid combines the power of a petrol engine and the efficiency of a battery-powered electric motor. Exciting, efficient and sustainable”.
Issue
The ASA challenged whether the claim “sustainable” gave a misleading impression of the car’s environmental impact and could be substantiated.
Response
Mazda Motors UK Ltd said they accepted the ad could unintentionally give a misleading impression, that they withdrew it when they were made aware of it, and they undertook a full review to ensure they were not using the claim elsewhere. They said the use of “sustainable” was intended to communicate the efficiency of the Mazda2 Hybrid in comparison to the non-hybrid Mazda2 model. They said the basis of the claim centred on the use of the Mazda2 Hybrid’s combined battery-powered electric motor and petrol engine, with the battery powered electric motor offering competitive fuel consumption and carbon dioxide emissions.
Assessment
Upheld
The CAP Code required that the basis of environmental claims must be clear, and that absolute environmental claims must be supported by a high level of substantiation. Environmental claims must be based on the full life cycle of the advertised product, unless the ad stated otherwise.
The ASA welcomed Mazda’s willingness to withdraw the ad and make changes to their campaigns in light of receiving notification of the investigation.The ad featured the claim “The Mazda2 Hybrid combines the power of a petrol engine and the efficiency of a battery-powered electric motor. Exciting, efficient and sustainable”. We acknowledged that Mazda sold a version of the Mazda2 with a petrol engine and without an electric battery engine, and that the electric battery of the Mazda Hybrid would result in lower carbon emissions, when driving, in comparison to the petrol version of the Mazda2. However, that comparison was not referenced. We considered “sustainable” was an absolute claim, and in the context of the ad, was likely to be understood by consumers as referring to the full life cycle of the hybrid Mazda2.
We understood that when the Mazda2 Hybrid’s electric battery engine was used no emissions were produced from the tailpipe, but when the car used its petrol engine, greenhouse gases were produced. We also understood other circumstances, such as the manufacturing of the car and charging the battery using electricity from the national grid, generated emissions.
Evidence in relation to the entire life cycle of the car, which would include the use of a petrol engine, had not been produced. The absolute claim “sustainable” had therefore not been adequately substantiated.Because the basis of the claim had not been made clear, and we had not seen evidence based on the full life cycle of the car to support the absolute claim “sustainable” as it would be understood by consumers, we concluded the ad had misleadingly minimised the impact of the Mazda2 Hybrid.
The ad breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1 (Misleading advertising), 3.7 (Substantiation), 11.1, 11.3, and 11.4 (Environmental claims).
Action
The ad must not appear again in the form investigated. We reminded Mazda Motors UK Ltd to ensure the basis of future environmental claims was made clear and did not give a misleading impression of a vehicle’s environmental impact, and that robust substantiation was held to support absolute claims.
