1
Omega General Help / Re: Orange Emission Light Cure Maybe..............
« on: 21 February 2009, 09:04:14 »
Did some research on the web after reading your post on CataClean the company in Liverpool System Products or Cataclean Global Ltd who produce this product and came across this so BEWARE its a SCAM the British advertising company tested the product
http://www.asa.org.uk/asa/adjudications/Public/TF_ADJ_41571.htm
The ASA considered that the claims of Cataclean were misleading.
3. Upheld
The expert considered that using a vehicle with a known and apparently unquantified problem was bad practice. The results showed that Cataclean had no beneficial effect on emissions. The expert noted the evidence did not repeat the decreases in emissions that were demonstrated in the infomercial. We considered that the claims were misleading.
5. Upheld
The expert advised that catalyst efficiency was established by analysing the exhaust gases entering and exiting the catalyst. He noted the submitted tests did not use that method. The expert advised that the product was extremely unlikely to survive the combustion process and reach the exhaust catalyst. We considered that the claim was misleading.
Action
We concluded that the infomercial breached rules 5.1 (Misleading advertising), 5.2.1 (Evidence), 5.4.4 (Testimonials) and 5.2.6 (Environmental claims) of the CAP (Broadcast) TV Advertising Standards Code and it must not be advertised again without adequate substantiation for each claim it made.
Also Ross Baigent the director of the companies did a similar Scam in Australia with Tim Johnston.
http://www.asa.org.uk/asa/adjudications/Public/TF_ADJ_41571.htm
The ASA considered that the claims of Cataclean were misleading.
3. Upheld
The expert considered that using a vehicle with a known and apparently unquantified problem was bad practice. The results showed that Cataclean had no beneficial effect on emissions. The expert noted the evidence did not repeat the decreases in emissions that were demonstrated in the infomercial. We considered that the claims were misleading.
5. Upheld
The expert advised that catalyst efficiency was established by analysing the exhaust gases entering and exiting the catalyst. He noted the submitted tests did not use that method. The expert advised that the product was extremely unlikely to survive the combustion process and reach the exhaust catalyst. We considered that the claim was misleading.
Action
We concluded that the infomercial breached rules 5.1 (Misleading advertising), 5.2.1 (Evidence), 5.4.4 (Testimonials) and 5.2.6 (Environmental claims) of the CAP (Broadcast) TV Advertising Standards Code and it must not be advertised again without adequate substantiation for each claim it made.
Also Ross Baigent the director of the companies did a similar Scam in Australia with Tim Johnston.