VLS vows to protect end-users in guidance update

The Verification of Lubricant Specifications (VLS) has introduced what it calls “more stringent guidance” on the use of marketing claims on lubricant packaging to ensure end-users are protected. The organisation says the move comes in response to several recent cases, many of which have involved lubricant products making “misleading or incorrect claims”.

VLS was formed in 2013, and since then, its Technical Review Panel (TRP) has investigated 146 complaints. Cases have related to passenger and CV oils, automotive gear oils, transmission, brake, and hydraulic fluids, as well as metalworking fluids. VLS says most complaints received have related to marketing claims, including non-compliance with ACEA specifications and other industry standards, and conflicting or unevidenced OEM approvals.

In 2015, VLS introduced a set of guidelines for lubricant marketing claims. It acknowledges marketing claims in the industry at the time were complex, and there was “little consistency” in their use. The guidance was designed to bring clarity to the use of marketing claims and promote consistency in their use, thereby helping the end-user better understand these terms and what they mean.

This guidance was updated again in 2019 to require manufacturers or marketers that make ACEA claims to have reviewed and made available the Candidate Data Package (CDP) to demonstrate the performance of the formulation being used. VLS claims this document was considered the “best way” to assess the product’s performance against the ACEA sequences and is in line with ATIEL Code of Practice.

What do the latest guidelines say?

In response to findings from various recent cases, VLS has now updated the guidance to “sharpen” the definition of application recommendations. It says recommendations should be accurate and able to be substantiated for all the applications detailed. Broad statements such as ‘suitable for all models of an OEM’s equipment range’ or ‘suitable for several OEMs’, where it is generally known that multiple specifications exist for individual OEMs’ ranges of models, should be avoided, VLS says, as these are “seldom supported” and, consequently, could be misleading to end-users.

The updated guidance also reinforces the need to register with SAIL if claiming ACEA sequences. SAIL operates the registration system of the signatories of the Letter of Conformance on behalf of ATIEL, the Technical Association of the European Lubricants Industry. Lubricant marketers must be a signatory to the Lubricant Marketers’ Letter of Conformance, as required by participation in the European Engine Lubricant Quality Management System, which applies to all automotive engine lubricants. The list of registrants is publicly available so that organisations can validate suppliers: click here.

Sufficient, robust and relevant data

If a product is using the claims ‘Recommended for use’, ‘Suitable for use’ or ‘Meets the requirements of’, amongst other terms, the lubricant marketer or technology provider must have “sufficient, robust and relevant” supporting performance test data to demonstrate using qualifying protocols for the recommended application. VLS says this should be based on test data against the requirements of the OEM specifications and/or data from substantial field trials where appropriate.

VLS Chairman, Darren Frogson, said: “At VLS, our mission is to protect and educate end-users and to support fair and open competition in the lubricants market. As space in motor factors and workshops remains under pressure, there is a temptation for lubricants marketers to make multiple claims on individual lubricant products. But today’s sophisticated engines require a very specific balance of chemistry. Workshops and mechanics must be able to rely on Technical Data Sheets to confirm that a product has been fully tested and can deliver what it claims.

“Using the wrong oil can cause accelerated wear in gears and bearings, leading to increased maintenance costs and, if left unchecked, eventual engine failure. Technicians must be confident in their understanding of marketing claims and in selecting the correct product for each vehicle. VLS recommends that if mechanics are ever in doubt about which oil to use, they should always refer to the vehicle handbook or contact the OEM for the right oil recommendation.”

New guidelines supported

TotalEnergies is backing VLS’ latest lubricant guidelines. In a statement provided to PMF by David Valentyne, aftermarket sales manager, and Tom Hyde, technical support manager, they say VLS’ update makes it abundantly clear that ambiguity is “not acceptable”:

Central to the update is a warning against broad, sweeping statements that suggest suitability across an OEM’s full vehicle range.

Lubricant buyers are purchasing an essential vehicle maintenance product; compatibility claims should, therefore, be justified and substantiated so end-users can make better and safer decisions about the products they choose for their vehicles and workshops.

Under VLS guidance, any reference to OEM compatibility must be accurate and supported by robust evidence – and, as the new guidance highlights, this is required for every application cited.

VLS guidelines continue to reinforce the important distinction between different types of claims in the market, notably “approved” vs “recommended for”.

“Approved” products – those that have undergone formal OEM testing, validation, and sign-off – are to be clearly distinguished from products described as “recommended for”, “suitable for use,” or “meets the requirements of”.

For the avoidance of doubt and to ensure optimum compatibility, lubricant end-users should look for OEM-approved products as a marker of product trust.

Why has the VLS introduced tougher guidance?

The motivation behind the updated guidelines is rooted in improving clarity, trust, and decision-making across the supply chain.

Lubricants play a critical role in vehicle performance, durability, and safety, and inaccurate or overstated compatibility claims may lead to inappropriate product selection.

As engine technology becomes more advanced, more compact, turbocharged, and with evolving emissions standards, the demand for high-quality lubricants has never been greater. Using a lubricant that is not correctly specified may lead to reduced efficiency and increased wear, increased total cost of ownership, and higher environmental impact.

Using non-approved oils may result in accelerated wear due to insufficient film strength, DPF blockage caused by high SAPS content, increased oil consumption, and voided warranties, particularly under extended service agreements.

What OEM approvals actually means in practice

OEM approvals are the result of extensive validation processes that go well beyond baseline industry testing, such as ACEA or API sequences. OEM-approved lubricant is one which has been formally submitted to the vehicle maker, passed a full slate of proprietary engine and laboratory tests, and been issued an approval code that is traceable back to that specific formulation and production plant.

Achieving such approval requires lubricants to undergo thorough engine testing to ensure consistent performance. The OEM process typically demands more rigorous deposit, wear, oxidation, and after-treatment compatibility tests than the baseline ACEA/API sequences, and the lubricant manufacturer’s blending facility is subject to periodic audits. These approvals, therefore, act as a clear indicator that a lubricant has been properly developed for a specific application.

For example, with more than 160 OEM approvals, we are confident our Quartz range leads as one of the most comprehensively tested and approved lubricant portfolios on the market, covering one-third of the UK car parc. Taken together with “recommended” and “suitable for use” OEM compatibility, Quartz provides coverage across 99% of vehicles currently on the road in the UK.

At TotalEnergies, we have invested more than 70 years of research and development in our lubricant ranges, working as a trusted technical partner to manufacturers – co-engineering lubricants alongside engine design, meaning Quartz formulations have been developed to meet specific, real-world operating demands.

In the context of the latest VLS guidance, which is designed to eliminate ambiguity and strengthen trust in lubricant claims, OEM approvals become an increasingly important marker of quality and credibility. A range built on a foundation of extensive, verifiable approvals, gives factors, workshops, and vehicle owners the confidence to make the right choice for vehicle maintenance, performance, and safety.

Making the right call

The distinction between formally approved products and those carrying “recommended” or “suitable for use” is essential. While both may have a place in a range, they are not interchangeable. Approved products offer a higher level of assurance, reducing the risk of misapplication and providing greater confidence for workshops servicing modern vehicles.

Portfolio decisions should be guided, not only by headline coverage, but by the depth and credibility behind it. Supporting customers with OEM-approved products can streamline product selection, reduce risk, and build confidence. At the same time, any non-approved claims within the range must be backed by clear technical justification and communicated transparently. As the VLS guidelines make clear, ambiguity is not acceptable – and factors play a key role in ensuring that the information passed down the supply chain is accurate and reliable.

Ultimately, a well-structured, approval-led lubricant portfolio supports better outcomes for workshops and end-users alike.