Carter Holt Harvey (CHH) has been found guilty of misleading advertising over the effectiveness of one of its products used in building house frames.
The Advertising Standards Complaints Board found Carter Holt guilty on two counts of misrepresenting its Laserframe product in a free brochure available from retailers for the last two years.
Carter Holt won its appeal against a third brochure complaint.
Complainant Paul Beaumont, of Lower Hutt, has a Bachelor of Science degree from Victoria University and a Bachelor of Forestry Science from the Australian National University.
He was appalled at three of the 10 points made on the back of the brochure, replying to frequently asked questions about the use of treated and untreated timber in framing. Laserframe is an untreated product.
Mr Beaumont said such misinformation from a big supplier posed significant problems to consumers and could have contributed to the weather tightness problem.
He claimed Carter Holt was simply pushing a product that suited its production schedule and presented incorrect advertising as if it were fact.
Laserframe is a kiln-dried, chemical-free timber.
In response to the scripted question: "Do more problems occur with chemical-free than H1 treated pine framing?" the company was found guilty by replying: "The susceptibility of chemical-free and H1 treated timber is similar".
The advertising board also found CHH guilty for its answer to: "Is my builder using the best materials when he uses chemical-free Laserframe?"
It called Carter Holt 's technically complex reply "an exaggerated claim" as no "objective researcher" had verified the answer.
CHH had no plans to appeal against the decision and was collecting any outstanding brochures and destroying them.
- NZPA
Carter Holt Harvey found guilty over timber ad
AdvertisementAdvertise with NZME.