Background
Summary of Council decision:
Five issues were investigated, all were Upheld.
Ad description
A 24-page circular for Zaeta Slim Patch, a weight loss patch, seen in July 2020 in the Summer 2020 edition of Positive Health magazine, was titled ‘SPECIAL ZAETA SLIM PATCH ISSUE’. The front page featured claims including “ADVANCED & SCIENTIFICALLY DEVELOPED”, “REPORT: THE EASIEST AND MOST EFFECTIVE WEIGHT LOSS SOLUTION – PROVEN BY SCIENCE”, “WARNING… CAUSES UNSTOPPABLE WEIGHT LOSS”, "A Major Breakthrough Weight Loss Solution", “INSIDE: Hollywood Stars recommend Zaeta SLIM PATCH”, and a tick bullet list with text stating “NO STARVATION […] NO SPECIAL FOODS […] NO EXERCISE […] LOSE WEIGHT”. The page also featured a large image of the slim patch, a measuring tape with the statement "PLUS: YOUR OWN SUCCESS STORIES", and image of a stamp of approval including a crest and text stating “100% APPROVED HARVARD”.
A subsequent page of the brochure featured an image of six people in laboratory coats with the caption "PROFESSOR MICHAEL JAMES & TEAM OF SCIENTISTS", and various claims about the product, including “Lose 30 lbs in 30 days with Zaeta Slim Patch – then keep on going! […] You’ll start to lose weight on day 1". Another page displayed an image of a line graph measuring “Weight Lost” by “Days”, and indicating weight loss of 50 lbs over the course of 49 days. Alongside it, text stated “100% SUCCESS – WITHOUT DIETS & EXERCISE THE TESTS PROVE IT… In clinical studies the results were clear. Every user lost weight in record time – 100% success! Just look at the average weight loss (some lost more weight, or lost weight faster!)".
The ad included various statements about the product, including “Zaeta Slim Patch gets to work straight away, changing the bacteria in your body, replacing bad bacteria […] Doctors and scientists have now studied the micro-organisms and bacteria in our stomach. What they have discovered was that all the SKINNY PEOPLE HAVE A DIFFERENT SET OF STOMACH MICROBES TO THOSE WHO ARE FAT ! […] Can you change the microbes in your stomach so it’s the same as the thin, slim people YES YOU CAN!”. Text on a page titled "QUESTIONS & ANSWERS" stated "Each patch is full of a Bacteriodete called Oligofructose. People who are thin have a lot of Bacteriodetes […] if your gut is full of Bacteriodetes, then your body doesn’t get any more energy than it can burn up, and definitely none to turn into fat. You don't put on any weight at all".
A further page stated "The KEY to Absolute Weight Loss is the Zaeta Slim Patch […] Probiotics are live bacteria and yeasts that are good for you, especially your digestive system… Your body is full of bacteria, both good and bad. Probiotics are often called "good" or "helpful" bacteria because they help keep your gut healthy." A further page also included the statement "IN 30 DAYS YOU WILL LOSE 30LBS. OR YOUR MONEY BACK I GUARANTEE THIS 100% […] If you are not 100% satisfied with the weight loss you get (if you only lose 29.99 lbs in 30 days, for example), I will give you back all your money".
The ad featured several personal testimonials, most with 'before' and 'after' photos. One for "Keri" stated “Keri lost 48 lbs with Zaeta Slim Patch”. Others claimed "Natalie lost 35 pounds In less than 30 days", that "Sarah" "LOST 65 LBS WITH ZAETA SLIM PATCH" and "9lbs In the first week and then the weight kept coming off", and that "Julie […] lost 30 lbs in 30 days and another 12 lbs in 12 days". A double page of the ad was titled "HOLLYWOOD LOVES PROBIOTICS", and included statements such as “Stars use Probiotics, you should start too!”. The pages featured the names and images of ten well-known actresses. A page titled "THE ZAETA HEALTH BENEFITS TOO IMPORTANT TO IGNORE", featured a tick-bulleted list titled "Probiotics" which stated "reduce the risk and severity of diarrhoea […] improve symptoms of mental health disorders such as depression, anxiety, stress and memory […] protect the heart […] reduce the risk and severity of certain allergies, such as eczema in infants, however, more research is needed […] reduce the symptoms of bowel disorders like ulcerative colitis, ibs [sic] and necrotizing enterocolitis […] boost your immune system and protect against infections". A similar list under the title "Prebiotics" also stated "reduce blood triglyceride levels […] increase bone density […] prevent intestinal infections […] reduce inflammation in the colon walls […] improve bowel regularity […] control weight and appetite". Below that text stated "Each Zaeta Slim Patch contains the following pro and pre biotica gut cleansing ingredients laying the foundations for weight loss […] INULIN […] OLIGOFRUCTOSE […] LACTOBACILLIS ACIDOPHILUS […] BIFIDOBACTERIUM BIFIDUM".
Issue
The complainant challenged whether: 1. the efficacy claims throughout the ad that the product could assist with weight loss were misleading and could be substantiated; and 2. the various testimonials, including those by “Hollywood stars” and Professor Michael James, were genuine and related to the advertised product. 3. The ASA challenged whether the claim “Lose 30 lbs in 30 days”, the graph indicating weight loss of 50 lbs in 49 days, and various weight loss claims in testimonials relating to "Keri", "Natalie", "Sarah" and Julie", breached the Code. 4. The ASA challenged whether the ad made various medicinal claims for the Zaeta slim patch product, which was neither a licensed medicine nor a CE-marked medical device. 5. The ASA challenged whether claims in the ad about the product’s effects on health were misleading and could be substantiated.Response
Easylife Group Ltd said they had contacted the supplier of the product but had not been able to resolve the issues raised with them. They did not provide a substantive response to the complaint.Assessment
The ASA was concerned by Easylife’s 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. Upheld The CAP Code stated that a weight reduction regime in which the intake of energy was lower than its output was the most common self-treatment for achieving weight reduction, and any claim made for the effectiveness or action of a weight reduction method or product must be backed, if applicable, by rigorous trials on people. The 24-page ad included a number of claims that the Zaeta Slim Patch could assist with weight loss, including “THE EASIEST AND MOST EFFECTIVE WEIGHT LOSS SOLUTION – PROVEN BY SCIENCE”, “CAUSES UNSTOPPABLE WEIGHT LOSS”, and “100% SUCCESS – WITHOUT DIETS & EXERCISE THE TESTS PROVE IT”. The ad stated that through “transdermal transmission” the patches’ “active ingredients are delivered across the skin for systematic distribution” over 24 hours, and “GOOD FAT BURNING bacteria […] replace those weight-gain bacteria […] to make you BURN OFF FAT”, and the product “has permanent effects – so once you’ve lost your excess weight, you will keep the weight off and be permanently slim”. The ad also featured various imagery including a crest stating “100% SATISFACTION GUARANTEED” and a stamp of approval stating “100% APPROVED HARVARD” on the front page, photographs of a team of scientists in white lab coats and a scientist using lab equipment, human anatomy diagrams and various images of microscopic particles. The ASA considered that the weight loss claims would be understood by consumers to mean that wearing the Zaeta Slim Patch would result in weight loss, and that there was evidence from clinical trials to support that. Additionally, we considered the context of various claims in the ad that the product was “scientifically proven” to cause weight loss, the scientific imagery, together with claims and imagery suggesting that the product was guaranteed or approved, added to the impression that there was particularly robust clinical evidence to support those weight loss claims. Easylife had not provided any substantiation in support of the weight loss claims; neither clinical trials conducted on people, nor any explanation or evidence about the mechanism through which the active ingredients were transmitted across the skin, the physiological effect they had on the body, and how they resulted in weight loss as claimed in the ad. In the absence of any supporting evidence, we concluded the claims that the product assisted with weight loss were misleading and unsubstantiated, and therefore breached the Code. On that point, the ad breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1 3.1 The standards objectives, insofar as they relate to advertising, include:a) that persons under the age of 18 are protected;
b) that material likely to encourage or incite the commission of crime or lead to disorder is not included in television and radio services;
c) that the proper degree of responsibility is exercised with respect to the content of programmes which are religious programmes;
d) that generally accepted standards are applied to the contents of television and radio services so as to provide adequate protection for members of the public from inclusion in such services of offensive and harmful material;
e) that the inclusion of advertising which may be misleading, harmful or offensive in television and radio services is prevented;
f) that the international obligations of the United Kingdom with respect to advertising included in television and radio services are complied with [in particular in respect of television those obligations set out in Articles 3b, 3e,10, 14, 15, 19, 20 and 22 of Directive 89/552/EEC (the Audi Visual Media Services Directive)];
g) that there is no use of techniques which exploit the possibility of conveying a message to viewers or listeners, or of otherwise influencing their minds, without their being aware, or fully aware, of what has occurred"
Section 319(2). 3.7 3.7 Advertisements must not falsely imply that the advertiser is acting as a consumer or for purposes outside its trade, business, craft or profession. Advertisements must make clear their commercial intent, if that is not obvious from the context. (Misleading advertising) and 13.1 13.1 Radio Central Copy Clearance – Radio broadcasters must ensure advertisements subject to this Section are centrally cleared. (Weight control and slimming). 2. Upheld The CAP Code stated that marketers must hold documentary evidence that a testimonial or endorsement used in a marketing communication was genuine, and hold contact details for the person who, or organisation that, gave it, and also that marketing communications must not feature a testimonial without permission. Testimonials must also relate to the advertised product, and claims that were likely to be interpreted as factual and appear in a testimonial must not mislead or be likely to mislead the consumer. The ad featured testimonials about the effectiveness of the product in achieving weight loss from “Professor Michael James”, and personal testimonials from several individuals including “Keri”, "Natalie", "Sarah" and "Julie", which included 'before' and 'after' photos. A double page titled "HOLLYWOOD LOVES PROBIOTICS" featured testimonials relating to probiotics from a well-known actress, and from someone described as the “health advisor” to another widely-known actress, as well as the names and photographs of eight further actresses. Easylife had not demonstrated that any of the testimonials from Professor Michael James, the named individuals, or the actresses were genuine, nor that appropriate permissions had been obtained to feature them. We therefore considered that the testimonials breached the Code in that regard. Additionally, the testimonials attributed to the Hollywood actresses recommended probiotics generally, and did not directly refer to the Zaeta Slim Patch. However, the front page of the ad stated that “Hollywood Stars recommend Zaeta SLIM PATCH”. We considered that in the context of the ad as a whole, and in particular given the statement on the front page, consumers would infer that the testimonials by the Hollywood actresses were specifically recommending the Zaeta Slim Patch. We therefore also considered that those testimonials were misleading, because they did not relate to the advertised product. In the absence of evidence demonstrating that the testimonials were genuine, and because the ad misleadingly implied that the testimonials by the “Hollywood Stars” related to the Zaeta Slim Patch, we concluded the ad breached the Code. On that point, the ad breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1 3.1 The standards objectives, insofar as they relate to advertising, include:
a) that persons under the age of 18 are protected;
b) that material likely to encourage or incite the commission of crime or lead to disorder is not included in television and radio services;
c) that the proper degree of responsibility is exercised with respect to the content of programmes which are religious programmes;
d) that generally accepted standards are applied to the contents of television and radio services so as to provide adequate protection for members of the public from inclusion in such services of offensive and harmful material;
e) that the inclusion of advertising which may be misleading, harmful or offensive in television and radio services is prevented;
f) that the international obligations of the United Kingdom with respect to advertising included in television and radio services are complied with [in particular in respect of television those obligations set out in Articles 3b, 3e,10, 14, 15, 19, 20 and 22 of Directive 89/552/EEC (the Audi Visual Media Services Directive)];
g) that there is no use of techniques which exploit the possibility of conveying a message to viewers or listeners, or of otherwise influencing their minds, without their being aware, or fully aware, of what has occurred"
Section 319(2). and 3.7 3.7 Advertisements must not falsely imply that the advertiser is acting as a consumer or for purposes outside its trade, business, craft or profession. Advertisements must make clear their commercial intent, if that is not obvious from the context. (Misleading advertising), 3.45 3.45 Testimonials or endorsements used in advertising must be genuine, unless they are obviously fictitious, and be supported by documentary evidence. Testimonials and endorsements must relate to the advertised product or service. Claims that are likely to be interpreted as factual and appear in advertisements must not mislead or be likely to mislead. 3.46 3.46 Advertisements must not feature testimonials without permission.
3.47 3.47 Advertisements must not display a trust mark, quality mark or equivalent without the necessary authorisation. Advertisements must not claim that the advertiser (or any other entity referred to in the advertisement), the advertisement or the advertised product or service has been approved, endorsed or authorised by any person or body if it has not or without complying with the terms of the approval, endorsement or authorisation. and 3.48 3.48 Advertisements must not falsely claim that the advertiser, or other entity referred to in the advertisement, is a signatory to a code of conduct. Advertisements must not falsely claim that a code of conduct has an endorsement from a public or other body. (Endorsements and testimonials). 3. Upheld The CAP Code required that marketing communications must not contain claims that people could lose precise amounts of weight within a stated period, and claims that an individual had lost an exact amount of weight must be compatible with good medical and nutritional practice. The ad featured the claim “Lose 30 lbs in 30 days” in multiple instances, and also a line graph measuring the average “Weight Lost” by “Days”, which indicated weight loss of 50 lbs in 49 days, and accompanying text stated “In clinical studies the results were clear. Every user lost weight in record time – 100% success!”. The ad did not contain further details about the data in the graph or the source of the information. Personal testimonials in the ad also suggested that individuals had lost precise amounts of weight within a stated period: "Natalie lost 35 pounds in less than 30 days", "Julie […] lost 30 lbs in 30 days and another 12 lbs in 12 days", and a testimonial by “SARAH” stated “I lost 9lbs in the first week and the weight kept coming off, until I’d lost 65lbs”. The ASA considered that all of the above claims suggested that individuals had lost precise amounts of weight within a specific period of time, and therefore the claims were in breach of the Code. We also considered that the rate of weight loss referenced in the various claims – a loss of 1 lb or more per day – was unlikely to be compatible with good medical and nutritional practice, and therefore was also in breach of the Code in that respect. On that point, the ad breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 13.9 13.9 Television only – Promotional offers must be used with a due sense of responsibility. They may not be used in HFSS product advertisements targeted directly at pre-school or primary school children. and 13.10 13.10 Television only – Licensed characters and celebrities popular with children must be used with a due sense of responsibility. They may not be used in HFSS product advertisements targeted directly at pre-school or primary school children.
That prohibition does not apply to advertiser-created equity brand characters (puppets, persons or characters), which may be used by advertisers to sell the products they were designed to sell.
Licensed characters and celebrities popular with children may present factual and relevant generic statements about nutrition, safety, education or similar. (Weight control and slimming). 4. Upheld The CAP Code required that medicinal claims and indications were made only for a medicinal product that was licensed by the Medicines & Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA), or under the auspices of the European Medicines Agency (EMA), or for a CE-marked medical device. The ad included various claims that the product could treat obesity. Additionally on a page titled "THE ZAETA HEALTH BENEFITS TOO IMPORTANT TO IGNORE", the ad also stated the “benefits” included the treatment, reduction or prevention of the symptoms of various conditions including “ulcerative colitis”, “diarrhea” [sic], “eczema in infants”, “allergies”, “ibs” [sic], “necrotizing enterocolitis”, “intestinal infections”, “inflammation in the colon walls”, “mental health disorders such as depression, anxiety, stress and memory”, and that it would “boost the immune system and protect against infections”. The ASA considered that in the context of the ad, consumers would interpret those claims to mean that the Zaeta Slim Patch could treat all of those conditions. We considered those were medicinal claims which required that the product be licensed as a medicinal product or be a CE-marked medical device. However, we understood that the product was neither. Because the ad made medicinal claims for a product which was not a licensed medicinal product or CE-marked medical device, we concluded that the ad breached the Code. On that point, the ad breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 12.1 12.1 Radio Central Copy Clearance – Radio broadcasters must ensure advertisements subject to this Section are centrally cleared.
and 12.11 12.11 Except where stated in 12.1 12.1 Radio Central Copy Clearance – Radio broadcasters must ensure advertisements subject to this Section are centrally cleared.
.1 and 12.1 12.1 Radio Central Copy Clearance – Radio broadcasters must ensure advertisements subject to this Section are centrally cleared.
.2, advertisements for weight control or slimming products or services must not be targeted directly at individuals with a Body Mass Index of 30 or above (obesity) or use testimonials or case histories referring to subjects who were or seemed to be obese before using the advertised product. (Medicines, medical devices, health-related products and beauty products). 5. Upheld The CAP Code required that objective claims in ads for health-related products must be backed by evidence and if relevant consisting of trials conducted on people. On the page titled "THE ZAETA HEALTH BENEFITS TOO IMPORTANT TO IGNORE", the ad included claims that the Zaeta Slim Patch product could “protect the heart by reducing […] cholesterol levels”, lower “blood pressure”, “reduce blood triglyceride levels”, “increase bone density”, “improve bowel regularity” and “control weight and appetite". We considered that in the context of the ad as a whole, consumers would understand those claims to mean that the Zaeta Slim Patch would have those claimed effects on health. Easylife had not provided any substantiation or explanation in support of those claims, such as clinical trials conducted on people. In the absence of supporting evidence, we concluded that those claims were misleading and unsubstantiated, and therefore in breach of the Code. On that point, the ad breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1 3.1 The standards objectives, insofar as they relate to advertising, include:
a) that persons under the age of 18 are protected;
b) that material likely to encourage or incite the commission of crime or lead to disorder is not included in television and radio services;
c) that the proper degree of responsibility is exercised with respect to the content of programmes which are religious programmes;
d) that generally accepted standards are applied to the contents of television and radio services so as to provide adequate protection for members of the public from inclusion in such services of offensive and harmful material;
e) that the inclusion of advertising which may be misleading, harmful or offensive in television and radio services is prevented;
f) that the international obligations of the United Kingdom with respect to advertising included in television and radio services are complied with [in particular in respect of television those obligations set out in Articles 3b, 3e,10, 14, 15, 19, 20 and 22 of Directive 89/552/EEC (the Audi Visual Media Services Directive)];
g) that there is no use of techniques which exploit the possibility of conveying a message to viewers or listeners, or of otherwise influencing their minds, without their being aware, or fully aware, of what has occurred"
Section 319(2). 3.7 3.7 Advertisements must not falsely imply that the advertiser is acting as a consumer or for purposes outside its trade, business, craft or profession. Advertisements must make clear their commercial intent, if that is not obvious from the context. (Misleading advertising), and 12.1 12.1 Radio Central Copy Clearance – Radio broadcasters must ensure advertisements subject to this Section are centrally cleared.
(Medicines, medical devices, health-related products and beauty products).
Action
The ad must not appear again in its current form. We told Easylife Group Ltd that future marketing communications must not make unsubstantiated claims that the Zaeta Slim Patch could assist with weight loss. They also must hold documentary evidence that any testimonial or endorsement used was genuine, and they must ensure the appropriate permissions were obtained to feature it; that testimonials relate to the advertised product; and that claims in testimonials were not likely to mislead consumers. We also told Easylife Group Ltd to ensure claims relating to the product did not state or infer that individuals had lost precise amounts of weight within a specific period of time, and that any claims that an individual had lost an exact amount of weight must be compatible with good medical and nutritional practice. They must also ensure that future ads did not make medicinal claims for unlicensed products and that they did not make claims relating to the product’s effects on health in the absence of adequate evidence. We referred the matter to CAP’s Compliance team.
BCAP Code
1.7 12.1 12.11 13.1 13.9 13.10 3.1 3.7 3.45 3.46 3.47 3.48
CAP Code (Edition 12)
1.7 12.1 12.11 13.1 13.9 13.10 3.1 3.7 3.45 3.46 3.47 3.48
