Background
Summary of Council decision:
Two issues were investigated both of which were Upheld.
Ad description
A brochure in a national newspaper and a website promoted Medosan Age Spot Cream:
a. A brochure stated "Those tell-tale signs of ageing can be covered quickly and simply with this remarkable new Swiss formula. Because as well as disguising spots and blemishes it's an effective moisturiser leaving your skin softer and with a dewy, more youthful appearance. Developed by dermatologists, this natural herbal cream is safe for any part of the body: face, hands, arms, neck even breasts. Order yours today and before long you could be looking (and feeling) a little younger ... Prevent oxidation. Add moisture. Covers freckles. Covers dark patches. Covers age blemishes". It featured three images of a hand with marks appearing less visible in each image.
b. Claims on www.dailymailselect.com, following a search for "age spot cream", stated "Age Spot Cream ... Literally fades away age spots, discolouration and blemishes. Helps to give the appearance of younger-looking skin". The link 'More Info' led to a pop-up box where text stated "Those tell-tale signs of ageing can be covered quickly and simply with this remarkable new Swiss formula. Because as well as disguising spots and blemishes it's an effective moisturiser leaving your skin softer and with a dewy, more youthful appearance". It featured a pack shot and what appeared to be 'before' and 'after' images.
Issue
The complainant challenged whether:
1. the claims "Covers freckles. Covers dark patches. Covers ages blemishes" and "tell-tale signs of ageing can be covered quickly and simply" in ad (a); and
2. the claim "tell-tale signs of ageing can be covered quickly and simply" in ad (b), were misleading and could be substantiated, because she had understood that the cream would be tinted and would act like a foundation or concealer to camouflage marks on the skin, but found that the product was a white cream that did not hide marks.
Response
1. & 2. Easylife Group Ltd trading as Daily Mail Select stated that the product had been promoted in that way for a number of years. They stated they had sought guidance from CAP in 2009 and had followed their advice.
They provided a study called "In vivo skin lightening study", which had the objective "to assess the skin lightening ability of a liposomal version of a botanical extract versus a non-liposomal version as compared to hydroquinone on human subjects". The "Discussion" section stated "… as can be seen in the data presented, both the base + NAB Asafedita and the base + Brookosome Asafetida performed better than the base + 2% hydroquione, with the liposomal version having a slight better success rate over time ... It is apparent from the above study that using NAB Asafetida or Brookosome Asafetida would both be effective methods for evening skin tone and reducing the appearance of pigmentation due to age or sun damage". A further document listed the ingredients of the cream.
Assessment
The ASA noted that CAP advice given in 2006 had advised that the evidence provided was unlikely to be sufficient to support efficacy claims that the product could remove age spots and blemishes. The CAP advice further recommended that, in the absence of supporting evidence, the claims should be limited to those likely to be accepted for a moisturiser. We considered that the CAP advice given in 2009 was provided in relation to a product which CAP had been advised was a cover-up cream.
We understood that the evidence previously seen by CAP in 2006 was the same documentation which had been provided to the ASA in relation to this investigation.
1. Upheld
We considered that the claims "Covers freckles. Covers dark patches. Covers ages blemishes" and "tell-tale signs of ageing can be covered quickly and simply" in ad (a) suggested that the purpose of the product was to instantly cover and conceal skin patches to provide an even skin tone and that consumers would therefore infer from the claims that the product acted like a foundation or concealer to camouflage skin marks.
We noted that the complainant maintained the product was a white cream which did not hide marks. We also considered that the study provided was insufficient to support efficacy claims made in relation to the product, on the grounds that it had a very small sample size, there were potential flaws in the testing methodology and there was lack of detail regarding a control group.
Therefore, because we considered that the claims would be understood to mean that the product acted as a concealer which camouflaged skin marks, but had not seen sufficient evidence to support those claims, we concluded that ad (a) was misleading.
Ad (a) breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1 3.1 Marketing communications must not materially mislead or be likely to do so. (Misleading advertising), 3.7 3.7 Before distributing or submitting a marketing communication for publication, marketers must hold documentary evidence to prove claims that consumers are likely to regard as objective and that are capable of objective substantiation. The ASA may regard claims as misleading in the absence of adequate substantiation. (Substantiation) and 3.11 3.11 Marketing communications must not mislead consumers by exaggerating the capability or performance of a product. (Exaggeration).
2. Upheld
We noted that the web page advertising the product stated "Literally fades away age spots, discolouration and blemishes" and considered some consumers would infer from that claim that the product had a gradual effect on reducing the appearance of skin patches. However, we also noted that the pop-up box under the "more info" link stated "tell-tale signs of ageing can be covered quickly and simply" and considered consumers would infer from that claim that the purpose of the product was to instantly cover and conceal skin patches. We therefore considered that the information in ad (b) was contradictory and confusing to consumers regarding the purpose and effects of the product.
We noted in any case, as set out under point 1, that the evidence provided was insufficient to support efficacy claims made in relation to the product. We therefore concluded that ad (b) was misleading.
Ad (b) breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1 3.1 Marketing communications must not materially mislead or be likely to do so. (Misleading advertising), 3.7 3.7 Before distributing or submitting a marketing communication for publication, marketers must hold documentary evidence to prove claims that consumers are likely to regard as objective and that are capable of objective substantiation. The ASA may regard claims as misleading in the absence of adequate substantiation. (Substantiation) and 3.11 3.11 Marketing communications must not mislead consumers by exaggerating the capability or performance of a product. (Exaggeration).
Action
The ads must not appear again in their current form. We told the advertisers not to make claims that the product could cover or conceal skin marks.
