Background
Summary of Council decision:
Four issues were investigated, all were Upheld.
Ad description
Two websites promoted a laser teeth whitening service:
a. Claims on www.hollywoodwhitening.co.uk stated 'Laser Teeth Whitening Price Hollywood (Advance) Was £400 Now £135 - per person'. Claims on the 'about us' page of the website stated "Why do we cost less? We are able to offer our clients an affordable price because we specialise in laser technology (unlike some other clinics) and perform a high volume of treatments with clinics nationwide ... Established since 1998, our company's objective is to continuously update the best available equipment and products for our clients".
b. Similar claims, which included "Established since 1998", appeared on the website www.allwhite3000.co.uk.
Issue
The complainant, who purchased a voucher from www.hollywoodwhitening.co.uk and was sent a voucher for AllWhite3000 Ltd, challenged whether:
1. the claim 'Established since 1998' in relation to ad (a); and
2. in relation to ad (b), was misleading and could be substantiated;
3. the websites were misleading, because they did not include a contact address; and
4. the advertiser had provided the service advertised as "Laser Teeth Whitening Price Hollywood (Advance) Was £400 Now £135 - per person".
Response
Laser Cosmetics Ltd did not respond to the ASA's enquiries.
Assessment
The ASA was concerned by Laser Cosmetics' lack of substantive response and apparent disregard for the Code, which was a breach of CAP Code (Edition 12) rule 1.7 1.7 Any unreasonable delay in responding to the ASA's enquiries will normally be considered a breach of the Code. (Unreasonable delay). We reminded them of their responsibility to provide a substantive response to our enquiries and told them to do so in future.
1. & 2. Upheld
We noted we had not seen any evidence showing that Hollywood Whitening and Allwhite3000 were established in 1998, or which demonstrated a period of continuing trade. We therefore concluded that the claims were likely to mislead.
On those points, the claims breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules
3.1
3.1
Marketing communications must not materially mislead or be likely to do so.
3.3
3.3
Marketing communications must not mislead the consumer by omitting material information. They must not mislead by hiding material information or presenting it in an unclear, unintelligible, ambiguous or untimely manner.
Material information is information that the consumer needs to make informed decisions in relation to a product. Whether the omission or presentation of material information is likely to mislead the consumer depends on the context, the medium and, if the medium of the marketing communication is constrained by time or space, the measures that the marketer takes to make that information available to the consumer by other means.
(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 considered that the identity and geographical address of a marketer was material information which should be clearly included in a marketing communication. We noted the websites www.hollywoodwhitening.co.uk and www.allwhite3000.co.uk did not include a contact address and therefore concluded that they were misleading on that basis.
On that point, the claims breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules
3.3
3.3
Marketing communications must not mislead the consumer by omitting material information. They must not mislead by hiding material information or presenting it in an unclear, unintelligible, ambiguous or untimely manner.
Material information is information that the consumer needs to make informed decisions in relation to a product. Whether the omission or presentation of material information is likely to mislead the consumer depends on the context, the medium and, if the medium of the marketing communication is constrained by time or space, the measures that the marketer takes to make that information available to the consumer by other means.
and
3.4.2
3.4.2
the identity (for example, a trading name) and geographical address of the marketer and any other trader on whose behalf the marketer is acting
(Misleading advertising).
4. Upheld
We understood that the complainant had purchased a voucher from www.hollywoodwhitening.co.uk and was sent a voucher for AllWhite3000 Ltd. She then made a booking through www.allwhite3000.co.uk, but maintained she did not receive the treatment or a refund. We noted we had not seen any evidence that the treatment had been sold at the advertised price or that customers were able to exchange vouchers for the treatment and had subsequently received the treatment. We therefore concluded that the claim was misleading.
On that point, the claims breached CAP Code (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).
Action
The claims must not appear again in their current form. We referred the matter to CAP's Compliance team.
