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:
Two issues were investigated, both of which were Upheld.
Ad description
A paid-for Instagram ad for EME Aesthetics, a cosmetic treatment provider, seen in November 2024. The ad featured an image of a woman in a dress and a list of treatments alongside their respective prices. Text stated “BLACK FRIDAY LIQUID BBL & HIP FILLER […] 0% INFECTION RATE. STERILE CLINIC […] ADDS PROJECTION. ADDS CURVES […] ULTRA X. AFTERCASE […] MINIMAL PAIN”. A caption stated “Black Friday deals so good, they won’t last long! Get your appointments before the price increase on the 30th November 2024! DOUBLE AWARD WINNING. HUGEEE SAVINGS! UNBEATABLE PRICES FOR HIP/DIP & BBL…”.
Issue
The ASA challenged whether the ad was irresponsible because:
- the time-limited “Black Friday” offer pressured consumers into booking a cosmetic procedure; and
- the claims “HUUGE SAVINGS” and “MINIMAL PAIN” trivialised the risks of cosmetic procedures.
Response
1. & 2. EME Aesthetics & Beauty Academy Ltd t/a EME Aesthetics stated that all their clients were given a full consultation and were under no obligation to book any procedures. They therefore considered that their ad had not pressured consumers or trivialised the risks of cosmetic procedures.
Assessment
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 Black Friday 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 necessarily be irresponsible to offer promotions for procedures, marketers would need to take particular care when administering them. Undertaking cosmetic surgery should be portrayed as a decision that required time and thought from consumers before proceeding, because of the risks involved.
We understood that “Black Friday” referred to a specific day in the year when many businesses offered promotions. Because promotions often only lasted for several days or weeks around that day, we considered consumers would understand references to “Black Friday” to mean that the opportunity to take up the offer was time limited. We considered the phrase “Black Friday deals so good, they won’t last long! Get your appointments before the price increase on the 30th November 2024!” placed undue emphasis on the limited time frame of the promotion. We considered that it was likely to lead consumers to fear they would miss out on the offer, if they did not book quickly.
In that context, we considered that consumers could be 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 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 referenced a number of cosmetic procedures, including liquid BBLs and fillers, alongside the claims “HUGEEE SAVINGS!” which highlighted the money consumers could save with the offer, and “ADDS PROJECTION. ADDS CURVES”, which presented the results of the procedure in a positive light. We considered that the ad’s focus on potential price savings and the implied positive results created a trivial tone which detracted from the seriousness of the procedure. That impression was further emphasised by the claims that consumers should act quickly so that they did not miss out. We also considered that the claims “0% INFECTION RATE”, “STERILE CLINIC” and “MINIMAL PAIN” created the impression that there were minimal medical risks or pain involved in the procedures. The ad also failed to state that there were risks involved in the procedure, which further added to the impression that deciding to have a procedure was not a serious decision. 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 about. We told EME Aesthetics & Beauty Academy Ltd t/a EME Aesthetics to ensure that future ads did not pressure consumers into booking, or trivialise the risks of, cosmetic procedures.
