Background
Summary of Council decision:
Four issues were investigated, all of which were Upheld.
Ad description
A brochure for Shop Good Ideas, seen 12 July 2020, featured a number of different products. Alongside the product “Bella Brighton Hyaluronic Acid” text stated “Say goodbye to wrinkles in just 7 days”. Further text about the product stated “The must have beauty ingredient Hyaluronic acid has been hailed the wonder ingredient to reduce wrinkles and fine lines” and “Bella Brighton contains high levels of the skin plumping ingredient”. Alongside the product “BioClear For Skin Imperfections” text stated “Apply to the affected area and your skin tags will dry up and painlessly drop off to leave your skin silky and blemish free”. Further text about the product stated “Clinically proven to remove unsightly skin growths such as Skin Tags and Warts without pain”. Alongside the product “Biovit Miracle Nail Doctor” text stated “Just one drop will treat and prevent thick, hard and ingrown toenails”.
Issue
The complainant challenged whether the claims: 1. “Say goodbye to wrinkles in just 7 days”; and 2. “Apply to the affected area and your skin tags will dry up and painlessly drop off to leave your skin silky and blemish free”were misleading and could be substantiated:3. The complainant also challenged whether the claim “Just one drop will treat and prevent thick, hard and ingrown toenails” was a medicinal claim for an unlicensed product. 4. The ASA challenged whether the claim that the BioClear product would remove warts was a medicinal claim for an unlicensed product.Response
1. Easylife Group Ltd provided two literature reviews to support the claim. 2. Easylife provided a copy of the product’s Cosmetic Product Safety Report, which included a section related to the product’s efficacy. 3. Easylife said the product was registered on the Cosmetic Product Notification Portal (CPNP) as a cosmetic item. They provided a copy of the CPNP registration and safety and efficacy reports. 4. Easylife said they contacted the MHRA regarding the product who they said informed them that the product was classified as cosmetic rather than medical.Assessment
1. Upheld The ASA considered consumers would understand the claim “Say goodbye to wrinkles in just 7 days”, alongside references in the product description to “reduce wrinkles and fine lines” and “skin plumping”, to mean that the Bella Brighton Hyaluronic Acid product could remove, or at least significantly reduce, the appearance of wrinkles after seven days of use, with permanent effect. The evidence submitted consisted of two literature reviews which assessed the role of hyaluronic acid in relation to skin moisturisation and its effects on signs of skin ageing. The first review assessed the role of naturally occurring hyaluronic acid in the skin and skin aging. The second review included sections with an assessment of anti-wrinkle effects and anti-aging efficacy of various treatments which contained hyaluronic acid. Several treatments involved a cream or serum application and each was assessed for the effects of hyaluronic acid over a period of 60 days, eight weeks and three months, which was much longer than indicated by the claim. Each of the other treatments in these sections involved injection of hyaluronic acid and were therefore not relevant to the product. There was no indication of the concentration of hyaluronic acid in the Easylife product or how that related to the treatments covered in the review. While the product related to the reviews to the extent that it may have contained hyaluronic acid, we had not seen evidence that the particular product in question had been tested and found to remove or significantly reduce the appearance of wrinkles, on a permanent basis, after seven days. We considered the evidence was not adequate to support the claim, therefore we concluded the ad was misleading. 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). (Misleading advertising), 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. (Substantiation) and 12.7 12.7 Promises or predictions of specific weight loss are not acceptable for any slimming product. (Medicines, medical devices, health-related products and beauty products). 2. Upheld We considered consumers would understand the claim “Apply to the affected area and your skin tags will dry up and painlessly drop off to leave your skin silky and blemish free”, alongside references to “It’s fast, easy and pain free, skin tag dries and drops off” and “this secret formula works on all skin types, even on the most sensitive of areas”, as an indication that the product would effectively remove skin tags within a short period of time on any skin type. The evidence provided consisted of a study undertaken as part of a product safety report. The study involved 40 people, who used the BioClear product for removing skin tags. The study concluded that for 95% of the participants, skin tags dried and fell off and left no marks using the product during four weeks of the study. In the remaining participants, the skin tag or wart decreased in size by 48%, but did not fall during the four-week study. It was considered, however, that continued use of the product for more than four weeks could remove them. There was no indication, however, of how many participants made up the sample size and therefore how many had only skin tags treated. There was no indication of whether a representative sample of skin types had been tested, how frequently or in what form the product had been used over the four-week period, nor whether there was a control group available for direct comparison. We concluded that the evidence was not adequate to support the claim and we therefore concluded the ad was misleading. 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). (Misleading advertising) 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. (Substantiation). 3. & 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). A medicinal claim was a claim that a product or its constituent(s) could be used with a view to making a medical diagnosis or could treat or prevent disease, including an injury, ailment or adverse condition, whether of body or mind, in human beings and, where relevant, animals. We believed that consumers would interpret the claim “Just one drop will treat and prevent thick, hard and ingrown toenails” as a claim that the Biovit Miracle Nail Doctor would treat and prevent ingrown toenails. We considered that ingrown toenails were an adverse condition and, therefore, the ad made a medicinal claim which required the product be licensed as a medicine. We also believed consumers would interpret the claim “Clinically proven to remove unsightly skin growths such as Skin Tags and Warts without pain” as a claim that the BioClear product would effectively remove skin tags and warts. We considered that warts were an adverse medicinal condition which required the product also to be licensed as a medicine. We understood the Biovit Miracle Nail Doctor and BioClear products did not have the relevant marketing authorisation from the MHRA and because of that no medicinal claims could be made for either product. For that reason, we did not assess evidence for the claims. Because the ad made medicinal claims for products which were not licensed we concluded that the ad breached the Code. 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).
Action
The ad must not appear again in its current form. We told Easylife Group Ltd not to state or imply that the Bella Brighton Hyaluronic Acid was effective at removing the appearance of wrinkles, or that the BioClear product was effective at removing skin tags, without adequate evidence. We also told them not to make medicinal claims for products which lacked the relevant marketing authorisation from the MHRA.
