Who: The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) and Easigrass (Distribution) Ltd
Where: United Kingdom
When: 27 March 2024
Law stated as at: 15 April 2024
What happened:
The ASA has ruled that a social media ad published by Easigrass in June 2023 which made claims about the recyclability and environmental credentials of an artificial grass product was misleading, could not be substantiated and, therefore, breached the UK Code of Non-broadcast Advertising and Direct & Promotional Marketing (CAP Code).
The ASA’s ruling concerned:
- Whether Easigrass’ claim that its product, Kensington Eco grass, was “fully recyclable” was misleading and could be substantiated; and
- Whether the name “Kensington Eco grass” and the claims that “it offers a range of environmental benefits” and “ticks all the environmental benefits” misleadingly implied that the product was eco-friendly.
Both issues were upheld for the following reasons:
The ‘fully recyclable’ claim
In response to the ASA, Easigrass stated that, for UK customers, there was a recycling centre in Scotland that allowed customers to recycle their artificial grass product independently. Easigrass aimed to offer a recycling service in the form of either in-house recycling, or via the Scottish recycling centre, to all customers in the future. However, this service was not yet available.
The ASA considered that the term “fully recyclable” would be understood by consumers as a claim that the entire product could easily be recycled when it reached the end of its life and, in addition, that this recycling process was widely available in the UK.
In its ruling, the ASA stated that it understood that a recyclable coating was applied to the backing of the artificial grass. However, no further information was provided by Easigrass on this coating, its recyclable nature or how it could be recycled at a recycling plant. Moreover, the product could only be recycled at specialist centres, of which there was only one in the UK.
The ASA, therefore, held that the claim that the artificial grass was “fully recyclable” was misleading and that it breached CAP Code rules on environmental claims. This was as Easigrass was unable to adequately substantiate the claim and access to facilities that could recycle the product were not readily available to UK customers.
The use of ‘eco’ in the product title
The ASA held that the use of “eco” in the title of the product was deemed to imply “eco-friendly“. This was read alongside the claims that the artificial grass “ticks all the environmental boxes” and “offers a range of environmental benefits“. In the absence of a qualification in the ad or further details setting out the basis of the claims, the claims were considered to mean that the artificial grass had a positive impact on the environment and, therefore, did not harm the environment “at any point during its full life cycle“. Such an absolute claim required a high level of evidence to substantiate.
Under the rules of the CAP Code, the basis of environmental claims must be made clear and claims can mislead if they are unqualified or omit significant information.
The ASA held that the artificial grass was made from plastic and, even while it could be recycled at the end of its life cycle, it nevertheless involved the extraction and processing of raw materials. This meant that the artificial grass had a negative impact on the environment, at least at some stages of its life cycle. In addition, while the artificial grass did not need to be watered or be subject to any upkeep via chemical-based products, this was not enough to demonstrate a positive impact on the environment, particularly as the absence of real grass would have a detrimental impact on biodiversity. As a result, the claims were deemed to be misleading and in breach of the CAP Code.
Why this matters:
The ASA published its updated environmental guidance in November 2023 and proposed from 1 April 2024 to investigate potential green disposal claims. In particular, the ASA stressed that it would give a particular focus to claims:
- that omit end of use green disposal information where such information is material to the effective and responsible disposal of the item;
- that suggest a product has multiple green disposal options where that is misleading; and
- where substantiation to back up green disposal claims is not present.
The Easigrass ruling marks the end of the “grace period” within which marketers were required to get their green disposal claims in order and to comply with updated guidance, and the beginning of the ASA’s proactive scrutiny of such claims. It demonstrates the start of the ASA’s commitment to uphold complaints against misleading green disposal claims, and requirements on businesses to make clear the practicalities of such disposal, including via qualifications, where necessary, and to hold sufficient evidence to substantiate such claims. Businesses should expect to see further rulings in this area and should, therefore, take note of ASA guidance and renewed scrutiny in this area before making green disposal claims.
