Background
Summary of Council decision:
Two issues were investigated, both of which were Upheld.
Ad description
A listing for Dr Bunny Aesthetics, a cosmetic surgery practitioner, was seen 31 October 2023 on Fresha, an appointment booking service for beauty businesses. The page featured a cropped image of a close-up face with a section below titled “Services”. The section contained a list of different treatment options and included a box with the text “Anti Wrinkle/Botulinium Toxin […] from £50”. The box linked through to a booking page that contained the treatment description “Anti-ageing treatment is prepared from botulin […] for younger, more fresh looking skin” along with associated treatment prices that linked through to an appointment calendar.
Further text on the listing in a section titled “About” stated, “Dr Bunny Aesthetics Clinics Advanced Aesthetics Practitioners Providing Non-Surgical Aesthetic and Cosmetic Procedures”.
Issue
The Joint Council for Cosmetic Practitioners (JCCP) challenged whether:
1. the ad breached the Code because it advertised a prescription-only medicine (POM); and
2. the name “Dr Bunny Aesthetics” was misleading.
Response
Dr Bunny Aesthetics said they had amended the business name to DBA Clinic and had removed the reference to a prescription-only medicine.
Fresha.com SV Ltd t/a Fresha said that individual businesses were responsible for the content of their listings, nonetheless, they offered to remove the advertiser from the platform.
Assessment
1. Upheld
The CAP Code stated that prescription-only medicines (POMs) may not be advertised to the public.
The ad was a listing for an aesthetics clinic “Dr Bunny Aesthetics” on the booking platform Fresha, who provided booking services for beauty and wellness providers.
We understood that, within the context of an ad for an aesthetic clinic, ‘Botulinum Toxin’ referred to a botulinum toxin type A product and that it was a POM. We considered that the listing contained multiple direct references to a botulinum toxin including “Botulinum Toxin […] from £50” along with a description of the treatment “Anti-ageing treatment is prepared from botulin […] for younger, more fresh looking skin”. We further considered that references to “anti-wrinkle” treatment within the ad were indirect references to Botox, that had the same effect as promoting a POM. Furthermore, we understood that consumers could book and pay for the treatment from the ad directly, without receiving a consultation prior to undergoing the treatment. For those reasons, we considered the listing advertised a POM to the general public and concluded the ad breached the Code.
The ad breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rule 12.12 (Medicines, medical devices, health-related products and beauty products).
2. Upheld
We considered that, within the context of an ad for an aesthetics clinic, consumers would interpret the clinic name “Dr Bunny Aesthetics” to mean that the clinic was owned and operated by someone who held a general medical qualification. We considered that, alongside the repeated use of the prefix "Dr", reference to “Advanced Aesthetics Practitioners” furthered that impression.
We did not receive any evidence to substantiate that the clinic was owned or operated by someone who held a general medical qualification and therefore concluded the ad was misleading.
The ad breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1 (Misleading advertising), 3.7 (Substantiation) and 3.9 (Qualifications)
Action
The ad must not appear again in its current form. We told Dr Bunny Aesthetics not to advertise prescription-only medicines to the public in future and not to claim or imply the clinic was owned or operated by a person who held a general medical qualification, for example by the use of ‘Dr’, when that was not the case.
