The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) has upheld a complaint from cleaning brand Ecover about rival OceanSaver’s ad tactics.
The case is related to a website and TV campaign OceanSaver, which manufacturers dishwasher and laundry tablets, ran in 2024 – and Ecover alleged OceanSaver made claims about sustainable materials which could potentially mislead consumers about its products.
The ad has been banned in its current format by the ASA.
It’s a lesson learned for brands looking to use sustainability in their messaging. With the Digital Markets, Competition, and Consumers Act coming into force in the UK on 6 April, any businesses selling online must substantiate green claims, and provide a holistic picture of their environmental commitments. Under the terms of the new act, the Competition and Markets Authority will be empowered to impose fines of up to 10% of global revenue on companies in breach of the rules.
The ad in question
OceanSaver’s ad on the TV portrayed a person using a washing machine and included the line: “You switched all your cleaning to be plastic-free, without harmful chemicals, so you don’t harm the sea”.
The website showed imagery of OceanSaver’s ‘Eco Laundry Capsules’ with the attached claim that products were “100% plastic-free and contain zero microplastics”.
Ecover’s issue
Ecover complained the ‘plastic-free’ and ‘zero microplastics’ claims was incorrect given that the capsules contain polyvinyl alcohol – often referred to as PVOH or PVA. This synthetic polymer material forms the film of the OceanSaver capsules.
Even OceanSaver reports on its website that PVOH is “technically plastic”, although it explains further that it is “one of the good plastics” detailing its dissolvability and biodegradability.
In response to the accusations, OceanSaver said it would pull the word ‘fully’ from this messaging, adding there was no scientific literature on the biodegradability of PVOH related to its products.
It was adamant, however, that PVOH is excluded from the EU’s microplastics regulation and defended its decision to talk up the product in the way it did.
The ASA concluded “adequate substantiation for the claims” was not evidenced by OceanSaver.
Despite reports presented for the case by OceanSaver, the ASA said: “One of the articles reviewed studies that showed different levels of degradation of between 38% and 86%, which meant that some PVOH was left.”
[image credit: Green Retail World]
