MADRID, 16 Abr. (EUROPA PRESS) –
The first section of the Autocontrol Jury, Association for the Self-regulation of Commercial Communication, has completely rejected a claim by Iberdrola against Repsol for misleading advertising.
Likewise, the organization imposes on Iberdrola the payment of any fees that may eventually accrue for the processing of the procedure before Autocontrol.
Specifically, the claim was filed on January 19 by Iberdrola Clients against an advertisement broadcast on television, in the press and on the Internet by Repsol in which its new renewable fuels were promoted.
On them you could read: ‘Repsol’s quality is now 100% renewable. From organic waste. Already available in more than 50 service stations and at the end of the year in 600’; ‘New 100% renewable fuels from Repsol’.
As stated in its statement of claim, Iberdrola considered that this advertising was “contrary to the principle of truthfulness, and, therefore, contrary to rule 14 of the Self-control Advertising Code of Conduct”, considering that it was “misleading or suitable to induce error”, while in his opinion it generated the impression that all of Repsol’s activity and products were now 100% renewable.
Likewise, the electric company questioned the veracity of the 100% renewable origin of these fuels, as well as whether they could be used by all vehicles.
However, according to studies provided by Repsol, Autocontrol overturns all these arguments by estimating that advertising complies with all regulations.
In its resolution, the Autocontrol jury believes that it does not seem likely that a consumer would conclude “that currently all Repsol fuels are 100% renewable, since that would mean admitting that out of the fifty Repsol service stations that currently have fuels renewables, the remaining service stations do not sell fuel”.
Furthermore, it considers that “there is no evidence from which it can be deduced that the consequences derived from the use of promoted fuels are substantially different – in terms of consumption – than those derived from the consumption of fossil fuels.”
“On the other hand, there is a study from which it is clear that these consequences – in terms of consumption – are not significant,” he adds, which is why he states that “it cannot then be seen that advertising omits relevant information at this point, in such a way as to mislead an average consumer who is normally informed and reasonably attentive and discerning.
For this reason, he believes that Repsol conveys “clearly and unequivocally the message according to which a new category of fuels is promoted, which can be found along with the traditional ones of fossil origin, and which are currently not available in all service stations.” Repsol, but only in fifty.”
Likewise, he believes that Iberdrola “has not provided any evidence from which any element can be derived that would allow us to question the renewable nature of Repsol’s new fuels.”
This resolution occurs while the lawsuit filed last February by Iberdrola against Repsol in the Commercial Court number 2 of Santander for “unfair competition and misleading advertising” is still pending ruling, considering that it had engaged in ‘greenwashing’. or ecological bleaching.
Specifically, Iberdrola went to a court in Cantabria since, in accordance with procedural regulations, when companies with different registered offices are sued, the plaintiff can choose the location of any of those addresses. In this case, the company that competes with Iberdrola in the sale of electricity and gas, Repsol Distribuidora de Electricidad y Gas, has its registered office in Santander.
