Background
This Ruling forms part of a wider piece of work on ads for liquid BBLs (Brazilian Butt Lifts), identified for investigation following intelligence gathering by our Active Ad Monitoring system, which uses AI to proactively search for online ads that might break the rules.
Summary of Council decision:
Three issues were investigated, all of which were Upheld.
Ad description
A paid-for Facebook ad for Beautyjenics, a cosmetic treatment provider, seen in October 2024. The ad featured an image of a list of treatments with the respective prices displayed next to a before-and-after image of a woman’s bottom. Text on the image stated “BEAUTYJENICS IS COMING TO MANCHESTER … WHO’S READY FOR REAL RESULTS? Bringing our liquid BBL TO THE NORTH … MANCHESTER … LIMITED SPACE AVAILABLE 14TH-16TH OCTOBER”. A caption on the post stated “Beautyjenics is bringing the highly-sought-after **Liquid BBL** treatment to **Manchester** from **October 15th-16th**. Don’t miss this exclusive opportunity to get that perfect peachy look!”. A link to the Beautyjenics website was included in the post.
Issue
The ASA challenged whether the ad was irresponsible because:
- the availability and time-limited offer pressured consumers into booking a cosmetic procedure;
- the claim “get that perfect peachy look!” created unrealistic expectations about the results of cosmetic procedures and exploited women’s insecurities around body image; and
- the claims “don’t miss this exclusive opportunity” and “who’s ready for real results” trivialised the risks of cosmetic procedures.
Response
Beautyjenics Ltd did not respond to the ASA’s enquiries.
Assessment
The ASA was concerned by Beautyjenics’ 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 provide a response to our enquiries and told them to do so in future.
1. Upheld
The CAP Code required marketing communications to be prepared with a sense of responsibility to consumers and to society. The ad was a promotion for “liquid BBLs” (Brazilian Butt Lift) and other cosmetic procedures. We understood that a liquid BBL involved the injection of dermal filler into the bottom to enhance its volume and shape. We understood from guidance from the Joint Council for Cosmetic Procedures that liquid BBLs were considered to be surgical procedures, which carried a level of risk. We considered that, although it would not have necessarily been irresponsible to offer promotions for procedures, marketers would need to take particular care when administering them. Undertaking cosmetic surgery should have been portrayed as a decision that required time and thought from consumers before proceeding, because of the risks involved.
The ad stated “MANCHESTER… LIMITED SPACE AVAILABLE 14TH -16TH OCTOBER” and “Don’t miss this exclusive opportunity to get that perfect peachy look”. We considered that consumers would have understood that there was a time-limited opportunity to book the procedure, and the number of appointments available was finite. The ad also stated that the procedure was “highly-sought-after”, which implied it would likely sell out quickly. We considered those claims created undue emphasis on the promotions limited timeframe and were likely to have led consumers to fear they would miss out on the offer if they had not booked quickly.
In that context, we considered that consumers could have been rushed into making a decision to have cosmetic surgery without taking sufficient time to consider the consequences. Because the ad created a sense of undue urgency to book a cosmetic procedure quickly, we considered that it had not been prepared in a socially responsible manner and therefore breached the Code.
On that point, the ad breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rule 1.3 (Social responsibility).
2. Upheld
CAP Guidance on cosmetic interventions stated that marketers should not play on consumers’ insecurities or exaggerate the likely outcome of the intervention for the average consumer.
The ad included the claim “get that perfect peachy look!” which we understood was targeted at women and implied they could change their body shape through cosmetic surgery. The ad also featured before-and-after images of a woman’s bottom, and the claim “WHO’S READY FOR REAL RESULTS?”. We understood that the actual end result would depend on a variety of factors and considered that the claims created unrealistic expectations of what could have been achieved from the surgery. We therefore considered the ad risked exploiting women’s insecurities around body image, particularly those with insecurities relating to their body shape. Because the ad exploited women’s insecurities around body image and created unrealistic expectations about the results of cosmetic procedures, we concluded that it was irresponsible.
On that point, the ad breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rule 1.3 (Social responsibility).
3. Upheld
CAP Guidance on cosmetic interventions stated that marketers should not trivialise such procedures or suggest they could be undertaken lightly, because it was likely that all such interventions would carry some level of risk to the patient, such as infections. It was therefore important that marketers presented such procedures responsibly in their advertising.
The ad stated that the procedure involved a liquid BBL with different quantities of filler, which would be injected into the bottom. The ad included the claims “WHO’S READY FOR REAL RESULTS?” and “Don’t miss this exclusive opportunity to get that perfect peachy look”. We considered those claims presented the decision to book the procedure as exciting, with a focus on the perceived positive results of the procedure and no reference to the risks involved. That created the impression that the decision to book the procedure was not a serious one. Moreover, the emphasis on the “exclusive” and time limited nature of the offer portrayed the decision to book the cosmetic procedure as one that needed to be taken quickly to avoid missing out. In that context, the ad portrayed the decision to have cosmetic surgery as one that could have been taken without proper consideration and quickly to capitalise on a promotional offer. Because the ad detracted from the seriousness of the decision to undertake a cosmetic intervention, we concluded that it trivialised the risks of the surgery and was socially irresponsible.
On that point, the ad breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rule 1.3 (Social responsibility).
Action
The ad must not appear again in the form complained of. We told Beautyjenics Ltd to ensure that future ads did not pressure consumers into booking a cosmetic procedure, trivialise the risks involved or exploit women’s insecurities surrounding body image. We referred the matter to CAP’s Compliance team.
