The Advertising Standards Authority of South Africa has upheld a consumer complaint against BMW South Africa regarding the BMW 2 Series Coupé’s claimed fuel consumption.
Vishal Demrugaram lodged a complaint against BMW’s claim – both on its website and on a specification sheet given to him by SMG Umhlanga – that its 220i’s fuel consumption is 5,7 L/100 km.
He submitted that this claimed fuel consumption figure was one of the key factors that informed his decision to purchase the vehicle, as he thought he would be getting at least 650 km from the 52-litre tank.
However, Demrugaram reported that he had not been able to attain “anywhere close” to the claimed consumption, adding that his fuel consumption was generally “more than double” the claimed figure (around 12 L/100km on average).
BMW SA responded that it had tested the complainant’s vehicle, which achieved a figure of 4,5 L/100 km, concluding that the “alleged high fuel consumption experienced by the complainant can be attributed to unfavourable driving conditions”.
The respondent further submitted that the figures and technical specifications detailed on its website were accumulated from specific tests conducted on the vehicles in “controlled environments”.
BMW SA further argued that the product information on the website was “sufficiently transparent and substantially adequate” for a customer to make an informed decision to purchase the motor vehicle.
More specifically, it offers the customer clear information on the fuel economy of the specified motor vehicle under the “Facts and Figures” tab, and in particular point 5, which expressly states the following: “All performance and fuel consumption figures stated are indicative values. These values are measured on equivalent sample vehicles with standard equipment and under prescribed laboratory procedures”.
The respondent added that it conforms to the test procedures that are defined under UN ECE R101 regulations, as well as UN Regulation 83, which sets out the procedures that are used to measure the CO2 emissions and fuel consumption of a motor vehicle.
Pointing out that the topic of fuel consumption figures “has come before the ASA on many occasions”, the Directorate said that it accepted that most manufacturers followed standardised, laboratory tests in order to ensure easy and realistic comparisons across various brands and models.
“However, the problem appears to relate to communication, rather than testing. As such, the complaint relates to a possible contravention of Clause 4.2.1 of Section II (Misleading claims) rather than the factuality of the fuel consumption advertised,” said the ASA.
The ASA added that consumption figures claimed must make it clear whether or not they were achieved in “the real world” or under testing conditions. That the specifications should be seen solely as a guide for the results that the motor vehicle may achieve is key here.
“Unfortunately for consumers, none of this information is presented anywhere where the fuel consumption figures appear. Furthermore, the fuel consumption claim is made without any hint that it is qualified (such as an asterisk), or that specific clarity is needed in interpreting it.
“This suggests that there are no special conditions attached to the claimed figure, which suggests that it is reasonable to expect similar values when using the vehicle after purchase. While a reasonable person would understand that he or she cannot expect to achieve the exact same results in all circumstances, one would reasonably expect to achieve consumption within the vicinity of that claimed,” the ASA said in its ruling.
Furthermore, the Directorate did not agree with BMW SA that information on its website was “sufficiently transparent” or “substantially adequate” for consumers to make an informed decision when it comes to the claimed fuel consumption figure.
“Apart from the fact that one has to click on a tab to access this information, instead of it being presented up front, the statement still does not give any indication that the claimed fuel consumption figures are unlikely to be achieved in real life conditions, or that fuel consumption figures are affected by various factors (and what those factors are), or that the claimed consumption figures should only be seen as a guide for the results that the motor vehicle may achieve.”
Given the above, the Directorate ruled that the advertising “creates a misleading impression about the likely fuel consumption of the relevant vehicle”.
“For these reasons, the Directorate finds that the claimed fuel consumption figure is communicated in a misleading manner, and it therefore contravenes Clause 4.2.1 of Section II of the Code,” the ASA ruled.
The ASA thus instructed BMW SA to withdraw the fuel consumption figure in its current unqualified format; ensure that the process of withdrawal is effected “immediately upon receipt of this ruling”; ensure that the process of withdrawal is completed within the deadlines stipulated in Clause 15.3 of the Procedural Guide; and refrain from making an unqualified consumption claim of 5,7 L/100 km again in future.
