Background:
Aftermarket parts supplier Equilibrium Tuning (EQT) is a significant source of misleading advertising, as previous posts have illustrated.
Recently, I addressed the subject of tune reliability and advised that when tuners pitch that their tunes are safe:
Request Hard Data: Demand access to detailed test results and performance metrics.
Post about Reliable aka Safe ECU Tunes
New Example:
As if to validate my point, EQT recently introduced an advertisement that cherry picks a high-mileage consumer to use as an example of someone operating an EQT-tuned car for a long time.
This advertisement violates Federal Advertising Law in that it presents a single user testimonial as though the results are what is generally expected.
Using the phrases “you can easily take your tuned car as far as it’s willing to go“, and that this person “is a great example of that” run afoul of what the FTC describes as “typicality.“
The Federal Trade Commission states the following regarding user testimonials that are advertised to represent typical results:
… it also gives rise to a claim that their experience is representative, or typical, of the results that consumers can generally expect to achieve. We call this a “typicality” claim, and, like other claims, it needs to be substantiated. If it is not substantiated, it needs to be qualified by a clear and prominent disclosure of the generally expected results for users of the product or the limited applicability of the endorser’s experience to what consumers may generally expect to achieve.
Federal Trade Commission – Volume 16 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 255.
As was discussed in the Reliable Tune post, obtaining sufficient data to substantiate a reliability claim is a significant undertaking. Of course, if this data were collected, it would be much more substantial evidence than a single user testimonial. It would therefore make for a more convincing product advertisement.
The challenge of collecting reliability data, along with the absence of data from the advertising, and EQT’s prior misleading advertising, suggests that EQT cannot substantiate this customer’s experience as a typical result.
The lack of substantiation and the absence of a prominent and clear disclosure regarding the limited applicability of the user’s experience put this advertisement in violation of Federal advertising law.
Alternate Ads:
A couple of other EQT Real Customer experiences provide a different perspective:
Conclusions:
Equilibrium Tuning is an aftermarket parts supplier with a history of misleading consumers. In this post, a recent example of the company advertising a single user experience as a typical result is reviewed and shown to fail to adhere to Federal Advertising law.
Consumers should always maintain a “buyer beware” mindset when presented with advertising and insist that companies substantiate objective performance claims.