Advertisment
A Facebook post promoting the Arlo Ultra 2 included the following wording:
“Save 20% on Ultra 2 multi-cam and get a FREE Video Doorbell kits with ULTRA20”
“The First. Still The Best. Unmatched 4K security, 10 years in the making. Save 20% Code ULTRA20”
The advertisement also included “10 years of Perfecting Home Security”
Complaint
The complainant objected to the advertising on the following grounds.
Issue 1:
The complainant considered the advertising of a discount code of 20% was misleading as it did not work when they attempted to use it.
Issue 2:
The complainant considered that the claim “10 years of perfecting home security” implied that the product, a camera kit and doorbell, were a security system. They considered this misleading as a security system had the ability to protect a physical property from unauthorised access, theft or damage, whereas they considered a camera kit and doorbell were likened to CCTV.
Issue 3:
The complainant considered the claim “10 years of perfecting home security” was misleading as they believed that the advertiser introduced their security system in 2022.
They said that the product advertised was introduced in 2020, whereas the doorbell was introduced in 2023.
Issue 4:
The complainant considered that the claim “4K Security” was misleading as the advertising did not notify users that recordings in 4K were only available with a subscription.
Issue 5:
The complainant considered the claim “Unmatched” in the claim “unmatched 4k Security” was misleading as they considered that there were a number of other systems on the market that offered 4k recording.
Issue 6:
The complainant considered that the word ‘perfecting’ in the claim “10 years perfecting home security” implied that the system advertised was faultless when they had experienced issues with the system they had purchased.
Response
The complainant objected to the advertising on the following grounds.
Issue 1:
The complainant considered the advertising of a discount code of 20% was misleading as it did not work when they attempted to use it.
Issue 2:
The complainant considered that the claim “10 years of perfecting home security” implied that the product, a camera kit and doorbell, were a security system. They considered this misleading as a security system had the ability to protect a physical property from unauthorised access, theft or damage, whereas they considered a camera kit and doorbell were likened to CCTV.
Issue 3:
The complainant considered the claim “10 years of perfecting home security” was misleading as they believed that the advertiser introduced their security system in 2022.
They said that the product advertised was introduced in 2020, whereas the doorbell was introduced in 2023.
Issue 4:
The complainant considered that the claim “4K Security” was misleading as the advertising did not notify users that recordings in 4K were only available with a subscription.
Issue 5:
The complainant considered the claim “Unmatched” in the claim “unmatched 4k Security” was misleading as they considered that there were a number of other systems on the market that offered 4k recording.
Issue 6:
The complainant considered that the word ‘perfecting’ in the claim “10 years perfecting home security” implied that the system advertised was faultless when they had experienced issues with the system they had purchased.
Conclusion
The Complaints Council considered the detail of the complaint and the advertisers’ response.
Issue 1 – Not Upheld:
The Council noted that a temporary technical error had resulted in the discount code not working in some cases and that steps had been taken to rectify the error once identified. The Council also noted that all qualifying customers had received the discount. In the light of the fact that the error was a temporary technical error that was rectified, and the discount code provided in the advertisement was correct, the Council did not consider that the advertising was in breach of the Code.
Issue 2 – Not Upheld:
The Council noted that the claim made in the advertisement was “10 years of perfecting home security” and that the basis of the complaint was that the reference to ‘home security’ implied that the product being offered for sale was a home security system. The Council noted that the advertisement had not made any reference to ‘system’, and that the advertisement had referenced what was being offered for sale. In the circumstances, the Council did not consider that the advertising was in breach of the Code on the grounds raised.
Issue 3 – Not Upheld:
The Council noted that the basis of complaint was that the claim (10 years of perfecting home security) was being made in regard to the products advertised, whereas the intention of the advertisement was that the claim was in relation to the brand. The Council considered the impression created by the claim, including its position within the advertisement and noted that the claim had been positioned on the bottom left-hand side of the advertisement. The Council also noted the examples provided to the Executive of the claim being used in other advertising campaigns. On balance, the Council did not consider that the impression created by the claim was that it was being made in regard to the products being advertised, rather they accepted that it was being made in regard to the brand. In the circumstances, the Council did not consider that the advertising was in breach of the Code on the grounds raised.
Issue 4 – Not Upheld:
The Council noted that no claim had been made in the advertisement in regard to recordings, however, they also noted that the camera advertised provided both live streaming and local storage in 4K resolution. In the circumstances the Council did not consider that the claim was in breach of the Code on the grounds raised.
Issue 5 – Upheld:
The Council noted that the claim made was ‘unmatched 4K security’ and that the intention behind the claim was in relation to the features and innovations that were integrated alongside the 4K resolution in comparison to other competitors on the market. The Council noted that the Code permitted comparisons and that advertisements that do not identify a specific competitor could still be considered to contain an implicit comparative claim as the comparison could be made with all competition within an industry. In this case, the Council considered that the claim was an implicit comparative claim. The Council also noted the requirements of the Code that a claim that any product is superior to others should only be made where there is clear evidence to support the claim and that such claims should be capable of substantiation. The Council noted the additional information provided, including the comparative review against five competitor products. The Council considered that no confirming evidence had been provided that the features selected were the only relevant 4k features of each product and also that no confirmation had been received that the competitors chosen were the only competitors in the market. In the circumstances and given the requirement in the Code that absolute claims should be capable of evidence by market share data or similar, the Council considered that the advertisement was in breach of Sections 4.1, 4.4, 4.9, 4.10 and 4.33 of the Code.
Issue 6 – Not Upheld:
The Council noted that the basis of complaint was that the claim to be ‘perfecting’ home security for 10 years had implied that the system advertised was ‘faultless’ and given that the complainant had experienced issues with their system, they considered the claim misleading. The Council noted that the claim made was ‘perfecting’ and that it had not been intended to be interpreted that their brand or products had reached perfection. The Council, while appreciating that the complainant had stated they had experienced issues, did not consider that the claim made was that the products or brand were ‘perfect’, nor did they consider a individual specific technical issue with a product negated an advertising claim. In the circumstances, the Council did not consider that the advertising was in breach of the Code on the grounds raised.
Action Required:
The advertising should not include the claim ‘unmatched 4K security’ without evidence to support the claim.
