HRV fined $440k over false claims
Water filter company HRV has been fined $440,000 after pleading guilty to making unsubstantiated claims about the benefits of its water filters and for making misleading claims about the quality of New Zealand’s home water supply.
HRV admitted that the information available to it did not provide reasonable grounds for claims about the performance of its water filters.
The fine was issued by Judge John Macdonald in the Auckland District Court on October 19.
The unsubstantiated claims related to the ability of a magnetic ‘‘ionizer’’ in its water filter systems to soften water, the benefits that consumers could expect after using the water filters, and the filters’ ability to reduce skin conditions, such as eczema and dermatitis.
In addition, HRV made misleading representations about the quality of water and about additives in New Zealand’s home water supply, and the need for consumers to buy a water filter to address this.
The unsubstantiated claims were made by HRV on its website between July 2, 2014, and October 12, 2017, in promotional materials and to customers and the public at presentations. They included statements such as ‘‘reduces skin irritations, dermatitis and eczema’’ and ‘‘removes existing lime scale and extends the life of your appliances’’.
HRV was bought by Vector last year in March.
At the time of the acquisition Vector chief executive Simon Mackenzie said HRV would continue to operate independently.
Vector has been contacted for comment.
Commissioner Anna Rawlings of the Commerce Commission said HRV did not have a reasonable basis for a number of the claims it made, including that its filters could ‘‘soften water’’ through a magnetic process.
‘‘HRV relied heavily on the information provided by the supplier without getting this verified by an expert,’’ she said.
‘‘Although HRV had some testing done, the results did not provide a reasonable basis for the various claims it had made – and continued to make – about the benefits of using the filters.’’
HRV also misrepresented the state of New Zealand’s domestic water supply.
This included the claim that ‘‘90 per cent of our waterways are polluted below swimming standards, yet this is where we source our water from’’, and that the filter would ‘‘remove many of the additives, as well as funny tastes and smells from your water supply’’.
Rawlings said these misleading statements likely created concern among consumers that a water filter was needed to improve the quality of their home water supply.
‘‘The impression that a reasonable consumer would take from these claims is that, without treatment, using the water supplied to New Zealand homes carried health risks. This was not true,’’ she said.
‘‘The water filter was an expensive and technical product.
‘‘Consumers should be able to trust the claims businesses make about the need for a product and its ability to deliver on the promises made about its performance, particularly when they cannot scientifically test the benefits or second-guess promotional statements themselves.’’
In a statement HRV said the charges laid by the Commerce Commission related to historical claims, and the company had since taken steps to address concerns and had removed any inaccurate information based on the commission’s feedback.
A spokesman said HRV had also put in place additional extra processes to ensure tighter control over marketing material in the future.
‘‘Although HRV had some testing done, the results did not provide a reasonable basis for the various claims.’’ Anna Rawlings