These reports are case summaries of complaints which appeared to raise issues of substance in relation to the interpretation of the ITC Advertising Standards Code. Summary statistics of non-substantive complaints can be found in the full reports which are obtainable from the ITC.
QVC
Complaint from: 1 viewer
Background
QVC broadcast an advertisement for an 18-volt, cordless power drill. The presenter pointed to the drill's CE logo and said 'that's your guarantee of authenticity... it means it's been independently tested to do what it says and verified to do what it says on the box.' He also said that the drill had a nickel cadmium battery, which he claimed had superior re-charging capacity compared to the more usual nickel hydride batteries.
Issue
The complainant disagreed with this interpretation of what the CE logo stood for, saying it was no guarantee of the general quality or features of a product. He also believed that the drill's nickel cadmium battery was in fact inferior to nickel hydride batteries.
Assessment
QVC said it understood the primary function of the CE logo was:
' to ensure that products are sufficiently well designed and built (and) that they will be fit for the purpose for which they are sold and that reasonable precautions are taken to protect the user against injury while the product is being used.'
QVC argued that when referring to the CE logo the presenter was referring to the authenticity of the product, following the independent tests that had been carried out on it.
The UK Health and Safety Executive regarded the CE mark was one of the things that would-be purchasers should look for. The ITC considered, however, that QVC over-claimed on the significance of the mark and agreed that the advertising was misleading.
Regarding the battery type, QVC acknowledged that the presenter had inadvertently said that the nickel cadmium battery the drill was fitted with was superior when in fact the reverse was true. It apologised for the error and had written to purchasers explaining the situation and offering a refund if they no longer wanted the goods.
Conclusion
Complaint upheld. Breach of ITC Code Rules 5.1 and 5.2.2.
|