Background
Summary of Council decision:
Three issues were investigated, of which all were Upheld.
Ad description
A promotion, seen on www.gogroopie.com, stated "Our Hollywood Must Have for only £19.95, Skin Chemists Apple Stem Cell Serum. Start the fight against wrinkles today". Under the heading "Quick View" text stated " • Save 82% on the Apple Stem Cell Serum, the latest craze in anti ageing and pay just £19.95 • Revolutionary ingredient derived from rare Swiss apples • Treatment already a favourite with celebrities such as Helen Mirren and Jennifer Lopez • Claimed to reverse signs of ageing". Further text under the heading "GoGroopie's View" stated "Trying to keep up with the latest and best beauty treatments is enough to give anyone wrinkles, so here at Go Groopie we decided to not only hunt down the secret product that has hit the beauty world by storm, but give you a fantastic deal too! Containing ingredients derived from the swiss [sic] apple, a species known for staying fresh. Apple Stem Cell Serum's (sic) are being hailed as a revolution in anti-aging [sic]. Working with your natural face, the serum rejuvenates the cells of your natural skin, giving a fresh, younger looking appearance. Use an apple a day to keep the wrinkles away, and snap up this deal for Apple Stem Cell Serum for just £19.95!"
Issue
The complainant challenged whether:
1. the stated and implied claims that the product could reverse the signs of ageing and had rejuvenating properties, were misleading and could be substantiated;
2. the claim "Treatment already a favourite with celebrities such as Helen Mirren and Jennifer Lopez" was misleading and could be substantiated; and
3. the references to "stem cells" were misleading, because he believed consumers would wrongly associate the self-renewal properties of human or animal stem cells, with the product.
Response
1. Go Groopie Ltd (Go Groopie) said that the ad only stated "Claimed to reverse the signs of ageing", not that those results were guaranteed.
2. Go Groopie provided a screenshot of the merchant's website which highlighted that both women had used Skin Chemists Apple Stem Cell serum, and an article from the Daily Mail from 2009 which also claimed that they used the product.
3. They provided two online articles from Swissinfo.ch and "Life Extensions magazine", both published in 2009, which they said confirmed that stem cells were found within all multicellular organisms, besides that of humans and animals and that "Stem cells from the Uttwiler Spatlauber apple" were being used in skin products. They also provided definitions of "stem cell" and "multicellular".
Assessment
1. Upheld
The ASA noted that the ad stated "Start the fight against wrinkles today", "... the latest craze in anti-ageing", "... hailed as a revolution in anti-aging [sic]", "... rejuvenates the cells of your natural skin, giving a fresh, younger looking appearance" and "... keep the wrinkles away". We therefore considered that consumers reading the ad would understand the claims to mean that if they used the product it would have an anti-ageing effect. In addition, we considered that even if the claim "Claimed to reverse signs of ageing" had appeared in isolation, consumers would understand it to be an efficacy claim reflecting the results that could be achieved if they used the product. We also noted that in the Daily Mail article provided, a Professor of Botany at Oxford University was quoted as expressing scepticism regarding the claimed efficacy of the product. Therefore, in the absence of any evidence, consisting of clinical trials conducted on people, confirming that the product did have an anti-ageing effect on users' skin, we considered that the claims were misleading and in breach of the Code.
On that point, the ad breached CAP Code rules (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),
12.1
12.1
Objective claims must be backed by evidence, if relevant consisting of trials conducted on people. Substantiation will be assessed on the basis of the available scientific knowledge.
Medicinal or medical claims and indications may be made for a medicinal product that is licensed by the MHRA, VMD or under the auspices of the EMA, or for a CE-marked medical device. A medicinal claim is a claim that a product or its constituent(s) can be used with a view to making a medical diagnosis or can treat or prevent disease, including an injury, ailment or adverse condition, whether of body or mind, in human beings.
Secondary medicinal claims made for cosmetic products as defined in the appropriate European legislation must be backed by evidence. These are limited to any preventative action of the product and may not include claims to treat disease.
and
12.7
12.7
References to the relief of symptoms or the superficial signs of ageing are acceptable if they can be substantiated. Unqualified claims such as "cure" and "rejuvenation" are not generally acceptable, especially for cosmetic products.
(Medicines, medical devices, health-related products and beauty products).
2. Upheld
We viewed the Daily Mail article supplied and noted that it stated "Now, that humble apple is a big celebrity, with fans such as ... Helen Mirren and Jennifer Lopez". We also noted that under an image of the women further text stated "Beautiful to the core: Helen Mirren, left, and Jennifer Lopez are said to be fans of the Swiss apple". In addition, we understood that Skin Chemists' product page stated "Celebrities such as Helen Miren [sic] and Jennifer Lopez are big fans of the miracle anti-ageing apple", and that below, further text stated "Read more in: Daily Mail & Life Extension Magazine". We considered that the claims in the Daily Mail article and on the merchant's website did not constitute proof that either woman actually used Skin Chemists' apple cell serum, however, and therefore we concluded that the claims were misleading and in breach of the Code.
On that point, the ad breached CAP Code rules (Edition 12) rules 3.1 3.1 Marketing communications must not materially mislead or be likely to do so. (Misleading advertising), and 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).
3. Upheld
We understood that plants also possessed stem cells, but noted the complainant's concern that Go Groopie had misleadingly implied that the self-renewal properties of stem cells had been harnessed in the serum, and that the ad exaggerated the results that could be achieved by using the product. We considered that consumers would associate the word "stem cells" with an ability to re-generate and replicate, and therefore when read in the context of an ad promoting an anti-ageing skincare product, might expect the product to have a powerful and noticeable effect. We noted that Go Groopie had not provided any clinical tests which studied the impact of the product on humans, however, and therefore considered that they had not demonstrated that the product would improve the signs of ageing or result in younger looking skin. Therefore, we considered that in the context of an ad promoting an anti-ageing product, the repeated references to "stem cells" were misleading and in breach of the Code.
On that point, the ad breached CAP Code rules (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),
12.1
12.1
Objective claims must be backed by evidence, if relevant consisting of trials conducted on people. Substantiation will be assessed on the basis of the available scientific knowledge.
Medicinal or medical claims and indications may be made for a medicinal product that is licensed by the MHRA, VMD or under the auspices of the EMA, or for a CE-marked medical device. A medicinal claim is a claim that a product or its constituent(s) can be used with a view to making a medical diagnosis or can treat or prevent disease, including an injury, ailment or adverse condition, whether of body or mind, in human beings.
Secondary medicinal claims made for cosmetic products as defined in the appropriate European legislation must be backed by evidence. These are limited to any preventative action of the product and may not include claims to treat disease.
and
12.7
12.7
References to the relief of symptoms or the superficial signs of ageing are acceptable if they can be substantiated. Unqualified claims such as "cure" and "rejuvenation" are not generally acceptable, especially for cosmetic products.
(Medicines, medical devices, health-related products and beauty products).
Action
The ad must not appear again in its current form. We told Go Groopie to ensure they held adequate substantiation before making future efficacy claims.
