Background
This Ruling forms part of a wider piece of work on rehab clinic referral companies. The ad was identified for investigation following complaints received from the Ethical Marketing Campaign for Addiction Treatment (EMCAT).
Summary of Council decision:
Two issues were investigated, both of which were Upheld.
Ad description
A website for Action Rehab, www.action-rehab.com, seen in July 2024. Text at the top of the home page stated, “Private Drug & Alcohol Rehab Centres […] Are you suffering from an addiction and in need of help? Call our team now […] For urgent help call us”, followed by a contact phone number. Text further down the page stated, “Addictions We Treat”, followed by a list which included “Alcohol Rehab”, “Drug Rehab”, “Cocaine Rehab”, “Prescription Drug Rehab”, “Heroin Rehab” and “Cannabis Rehab”. Further text stated, “Finding The Right Rehab Provider Has Never Been Easier. At Action Rehab, we have a large database of the most trusted drug and alcohol centres […] Our team are able to identify a number of options based on whatever criteria you have in mind”. Further down the page, under the subheading “The Admissions Process”, text stated, “Contact our addiction treatment experts who can help you decide on a rehab plan that will work best for your needs and budget”. Small text at the bottom of the page stated, “Action Rehab is an advisory service for individuals suffering from drug addiction, alcohol addiction or behavioural addictions”, followed by the Care Quality Commission’s (CQC) trust mark.
The website also featured an "About Us" page, which included text that stated, “Action Rehab is a referral and advisory service […] We work with rehab clinics throughout the UK offering the very best treatment in addiction recovery […] Through the use of our close connections with rehab clinics in all areas of the country, we can help get you help from centres that are local to you. If you are in need of quick admission into a local centre we will contact our network of clinics and be able to recommend a centre based on the parameters given by you”.
Issue
The complainant, Ethical Marketing Campaign for Addiction Treatment (EMCAT), challenged whether the:
- ad falsely implied that the marketer was acting for purposes outside its business; and
- Care Quality Commission trust mark misleadingly implied that they had authorised the advertiser.
Response
Action Rehab did not respond to the ASA’s enquiries.
Assessment
The ASA was concerned by Action Rehab’s lack of response and apparent disregard for the Code, which was a breach of CAP Code (Edition 12) rule 1.7 (Unreasonable delay). We reminded them of their responsibility to respond promptly to our enquires and told them to do so in future.
1. Upheld
The website home page stated, “Are you suffering from an addiction and in need of help? Call our team now […] For urgent help call us”, listed several “Addictions We Treat”, including drug and alcohol addictions, and stated that “our addiction treatment experts […] can help you decide on a rehab plan that will work best for your needs and budget”. While the page also included references to “supporting” and “helping” with addictions, we considered that the claims regarding help with addictions and references to in-house addiction treatment experts, along with the “Countries”, “Counties” and “Regions” list of locations of apparent rehabilitation services they offered, would likely give consumers the impression that Action Rehab provided treatment directly at clinics that they owned or operated.However, in the absence of a response from Action Rehab, we understood that they functioned as a referral centre that connected consumers seeking help for addiction with registered treatment providers, and that they received commission for doing so.
We acknowledged that small text at the bottom of the website’s home page and “About Us” page stated that Action Rehab was an advisory service, and that text on the “About Us” page stated that they were a referral and advisory service that worked with rehabilitation clinics, and recommended centres to consumers. However, because that information was located at the bottom of the website’s pages and in small text, or on the “About Us” page, we considered that it was likely to be overlooked. Also, the ad did not prominently or explicitly make clear what Action Rehab’s business model was and how they were funded.
The ad did not make immediately clear that Action Rehab were principally a referral company that received commission for placements with partner rehabilitation facilities, and instead implied they provided treatment directly at clinics that they owned or operated. We therefore concluded that the ad implied that they were acting for purposes outside their business, and did not make clear their commercial intent. The ad therefore breached the Code.
On that point, the ad breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rule 2.3 (Recognition of Marketing Communications).
2. Upheld
The CAP Code stated that marketing communications must not claim that the marketer (or any other entity referred to), the marketing communication, or the advertised product had been approved, endorsed or authorised by any public or other body if it had not, or without complying with the terms of the approval, endorsement or authorisation. In addition, marketing communications must not falsely claim that the marketer, or other entity referred to in the marketing communication, is a signatory to a code of conduct.
Both the home page and the “About Us” page of Action Rehab’s website displayed the Care Quality Commission’s (CQC) name and logo. We considered that consumers were therefore likely to understand that Action Rehab were regulated by the CQC. However, we understood that as a referral service, Action Rehab were not CQC registered. We therefore concluded that the ad had breached the Code.
On that point, the ad breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.50 and 3.51 (Endorsements and testimonials).
Action
The ad must not appear again in its current form. We told Action Rehab to ensure that their advertising did not falsely imply they were acting for purposes outside their business, not to imply that they owned clinics if they did not and to make clear that they were a referral company that received commission for their service. We also told them not to claim or imply in their advertising that they had been approved or authorised by any public or other body if that was not the case. We referred the matter to CAP’s compliance team.
