Kent Ro Systems Limited - Kent RO

Recommendation: Upheld | Medium: Industry Member

The ASCI had approached the advertiser for its response in addressing the grievances of the complainant and forwarded the details of the complaint, verbatim, to the advertiser with a request to respond to the same. The advertiser was offered an option to seek an Informal Resolution (IR) of the complaint by modifying or withdrawing the claimsin the advertisement, or alternately to substantiate the claims with supporting data. The advertiser was also offered an opportunity for a telecon with the ASCI Secretariat, which they availed and replied seeking for an extension of four weeks time from the due date of submission to submit their response. As a special gesture, the advertiser was given an additional five business days beyond the original due date to respond. The advertiser in their response stated that the advertisement is a generic consumer awareness communication intended to educate viewers about a known filtration principle, uses conditional language and makes no reference, direct or indirect, to any competitor. The advertiser relies on an independent expert opinion confirming that concepts of pore size apply to filters and not RO membranes, that increasing pore size extends filter life, and that larger pores are less capable of removing smaller suspended particles. The advertiser denies that the advertisement states that all long-life filters provide inferior purification, creates an impression that consumers must choose between purity and filter life, or disparages competitors. The advertiser provided the advertisement transcript and a copy of the independent expert opinion. The advertiser’s response, along with the supporting claim data, was referred to an independent ASCI technical expert for review. The expert’s opinion was subsequently shared with both the complainant and the advertiser for their additional submissions. In response, the complainant agrees with the findings of the technical opinion regarding the advertisement. The advertiser did not seek a teleconference or meeting with the expert but responded to the queries raised in the technical opinion. The advertiser stated that the information provided confirms the scientific principle in the advertisement, namely that increasing pore size to extend filter life may allow more impurities to pass. The advertisement does not state that all long life filters compromise purity and does not compare or target any specific product. The complainant’s response and the advertiser’s response was shared with the technical expert for final opinion. The Consumer Complaints Council (CCC) viewed the YouTube advertisement (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c3cJM8B2c-k) considered the complaint, the advertiser’s response and the final opinion of the expert presented at the meeting. Claim - “Longer filter life means compromising on water purity.” The CCC discussed the claim that longer filter life results in compromised water purity. It was observed that membranes with narrow pores remove smaller impurities but are prone to clogging or fouling, which reduces their lifespan. The CCC noted that certain membranes are designed to resist fouling while maintaining purification through anti- fouling methods. The CCC also observed that there is a process known as automatic back flushing which helps maintain membrane performance over time. On the basis of these observations, the CCC was of the view that longer filter life does not necessarily reduce water purity. Claim - “To increase filter life, a filter’s pores are made larger, which leads to impurities in water, and consequently water is not fully pure.” The CCC examined the claim that extending a filter’s life requires enlarging its pores, which could result in water impurities. It was observed that membranes with narrow pores effectively remove small impurities but are prone to fouling, which limits their lifespan. The CCC noted that filter longevity can be achieved through the use of anti-fouling membranes and appropriate processes such as automatic back-flushing, without the need to increase pore size. The CCC was of the view that while large filters can lead to longer filter life and may fail to remove small impurities, increasing filter life does not solely depend on enlarging pores. However, the present claim implies that to increase filter life, the pores have to be made larger and therefore unable to remove finer impurities. Based on this assessment, the CCC concluded that the claims, “Longer filter life means compromising on purity”, and “To increase filter life, a filter’s pores are made larger, which leads to impurities in water, and consequently water is not fully pure”, were inadequately substantiated. The claims are misleading by exaggeration. The claims are denigrating as they suggest superior purification by Kent RO water purifiers through unsubstantiated comparisons with purifiers having longer filter life. The said claims in the advertisement contravened Chapter I, Clauses 1.1 and 1.4, and Chapter IV, Clause 4.1 (e) of the ASCI Code. This complaint was UPHELD.