VLS
Avoid misleading marketing claims
Mike Bewsey, Chairman, VLS
Misleading marketing claims on lubricants continue to cause problems in our marketplace. Every single one of the cases investigated by VLS over the past three years has been related to conflicting or unevidenced OEM approvals. The VLS Marketing Guidance is very clear about why clarity and consistency in lubricant blenders, manufacturers, and marketers’ use of marketing claims is so important. End users must be able to make informed decisions on the correct lubricants for their vehicle and be confident that a lubricant is suitable for use in their applicationand where applicable will maintain the integrity of warranties.
VLS considers there are three types of generic marketing claims, of which two are common: 1. Approved. This means that the product name has been registered with the approval authority and a re-blend approval sought and obtained.
2. ‘Recommended for use’, ‘Suitable for use’ or ‘Meets the requirements of’, amongst other terms. These terms indicate that the marketer is making an informed, professional judgement based on supporting technical evidence regarding the suitability of a given lubricant to a stated application. These terms can include the following cases: ‐ an approval exists on the formulation being used, but the marketer has decided not to pursue a formal reblend approval for his product name.
‐ an approval is not technically possible, e.g. claims which are self‐certified and there is no body to grant approval (e.g. ACEA sequences).
‐ the specification is technically obsolete or one or more tests are currently unavailable but, on the basis of a technical judgement, e.g. similarity with previously tested materials, the product would fully meet all the requirements of the specification.
46 LUBE MAGAZINE NO.168 APRIL 2022
‐ the lubricant marketer or technology provider has sufficient, robust and relevant supporting data for the recommended application. This should be on the basis of engine test data against the requirements of the OEM specifications and/or data from substantial field trials where appropriate.
3. Not suitable for use. In practice, this would normally be indicated simply by the omission to claim one of the above classifications for the product.
In all cases involving marketing claims, it is the responsibility of the product marketer to ensure that they have sufficient data from a technically competent individual or organisation to justify any such claims. If a case is reported to VLS concerning marketing claims, the Technical Review Panel will check if approvals being claimed can be evidenced by an approval authority, such as an OEM’s website. Named Parties will be asked to provide documentary evidence that valid and current approvals exist or provide details of the technical assessment that underpins their marketing claims. This may include asking their Technology Provider to provide the Candidate Data Package underpinning a claim or a letter from their Technology Provider indicating how they support the suitability of the actual formulation being blended by the Named Party against the OEM claim. VLS will then work with Named Parties to ensure that any unevidenced claims are removed, Technical Data Sheets are updated and accurate information is presented to end users.
LINK
www.ukla-vls.org.uk
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57
