Advertising Standards Authority bans ‘eBike’ biz deemed to be flouting motor rules

The Advertising Standards Agency has issued a ban on certain promotions from Cyrusher Outdoor Sporting Ltd, ruling that a complaint made relating to an alleged flouting of eBike motor regulations had merit.

The rules governing what is and isn’t an eBike are simple and Cyrusher in its promotions even acknowledged the law, but within some content opted to tell its customers:

“Due to the current law surrounding ebikes in the UK, we have done our utmost to comply. So when you receive your new ebike now, there will be no throttle on the handlebar, and the motor is restricted to 250watts [sic] with a top speed of 15.5mph. But don’t despair, we have included the throttle in the box of accessories that comes with the bike. Plus we have a video on our site showing you how to derestrict the motor, as we know many of our customers use our ebikes off road or on private land. Please note: Cyrusher do not condone the use of an unrestricted ebike on the roads within the UK”.

With the stipulation that the derestricted bike be used on private land the brand stayed just within the laws of the land, but latterly on the website a video showing a bike review had a model being ridden on the streets of London, at times down public stairs, with a voiceover stating “Be warned, this little baby packs a punch with a top speed of 31 miles per hour.” Added to this, some content appeared to have been shot on public trails, which again would fall foul of legal frameworks.

The Advertising Standards Agency took a deeper look, finding plenty on the site that promoted content that it deemed to fall outside of the regulations, with some further content shot in London showing a model moving uphill at a constant speed without any pedal input, plus plenty of references to a motor with a 750-watt output, comfortably above the 250-watt regulations applicable to eBikes in the UK.

Interestingly, the ads agency seems to have concluded that qualifying language against ads did not overwrite the content of the ad.

Here the specifics of language becomes important and, as has been repeatedly a cause for concern for the wider eBike industry, branding what is legally a motorbike/moped as an eBike is not acceptable in advertising terms. This clarifies something crucial for the mainstream press which has repeatedly printed erroneous copy when higher powered electric motorbikes have been involved in very public incidents.

Tha ASA wrote: “Both ads featured various images of the advertised bikes that were shot against road surfaces and public settings. The products’ names included “Ebike” and that term, as well as “electric bike”, was repeated throughout the ads’ copy. The background of ad (a) featured alternating shots of the advertised bike being used on roads in Central London, and its embedded YouTube video included similar shots. Ad (b) featured text that stated “great for commuting”, and its embedded YouTube video featured shots of the advertised bike being used on what appeared to be public roads and trails. However, other than the qualifying text that related to the bikes’ power restricting set-up, neither ad contained any further information about the bikes’ legal classification, the subsequent applicability of relevant laws and regulations, or any steps that prospective owners would be required to take in order to ensure that their use of the bikes was legal. For that reason, we considered that the above elements gave the impression that the advertised bikes were equivalent to compliant EAPCs and could be legally used on public roads without the satisfaction of legal requirements that applied to motor vehicles.”

Seeking clarification to ensure its ruling was accurate, the Department for Transport confirmed its type approval guidelines to the agency, confirming that promotions of any ‘eBike’ or eBike motor capable of above a 250watt output should not feature any suggestion of public land usage without the right registrations and insurances.

All things considered, the ASA took up the case and asked the company to respond to the complaint, making amendments to bring the promotions back in line with the law of the land when advertising items as eBikes or electric bikes. The company apparently chose not to respond to the advertising authority which deemed promotions to be in breach of the codes (Edition 12) rules 3.1, 3.3 (Misleading advertising), (Edition 12) rule 1.3 (Social responsibility), and 3.9 (Qualification).

The promotions must now not appear again in the format put out to date. The matter has been referred to the compliance team.

Previously the agency has taken a keen interest in a similar topic – electric scooters – also taking to task FuroSystems for adverts showing a non share scheme eScooter being used on public land.