Background
Summary of Council decision:
Three issues were investigated, of which two were Upheld and one was Not upheld
Ad description
A product listing on Amazon for the FOREO Peach 2 IPL Hair Removal Device, seen on 28 October 2024. The ad included the product name followed by text which stated, “for Smooth Skin, 10-Min Hair Remover for Full Body & Face, Permanent Hair Removal, Alternative to Laser Hair Removal, Skin Cooling Technology, Peach”.
Underneath, text included “With a large 9 cm² treatment window […] covering larger skin areas […]”. Additional text stated, “SKIN COOLING SYSTEM […] IPL hair removal with a 360° cooling system, cooling the skin for pain-free IPL permanent hair removal treatments even on the most sensitive areas”.
The “Product Description” section featured before and after pictures alongside the text “PERMANENT HAIR REDUCTION IN JUST 12 WEEKS Results visible already after 2 weeks”.
Issue
Proctor & Gamble UK (P&G) challenged whether the following claims were misleading and could be substantiated:
- “a large 9 cm² treatment window”;
- “permanent hair reduction in just 12 weeks” and “permanent hair removal treatments”; and
- “pain-free IPL…”
Response
- Foreo AB t/a Foreo said the size of the IPL (intense pulsed light) lamp in the device was 4.5 cm². However, the design of the treatment window allowed the light from the lamp to cover the entire 9 cm² of the treatment area. They stated that when the device was used on the skin, some light leakage was visible around the head, indicating that the IPL light reached the edges of the full 9 cm² treatment area. They included an image of the device, showing the difference between the lamp size and the treatment window.
- Foreo pointed out that the claim related to the ‘permanent reduction’ of hair, rather than the ‘permanent removal’ of hair. They explained that IPL worked by damaging the hair follicle, which permanently reduced future hair growth. This resulted in the hairs that grew back being weaker, thinner and shorter. They said that other IPL hair reduction devices made similar claims due to the scientific cause-and-effect result of the technology.They provided a study of the Foreo Peach’s efficacy, carried out by a third-party testing company, and highlighted that it showed that 95% of participants reported noticeably reduced hair three months after discontinuing use of the product.
- Foreo said that the claim “pain-free IPL permanent hair removal treatments” was also based on the study, where 100% of testers reported the treatment was painless each week, over the course of eight weeks of treatment.
Assessment
1. Not upheld
The ASA considered that consumers would expect the claim about the size of the treatment window of the IPL device to refer specifically to the area of the device through which the IPL light was emitted and applied to their skin during treatment.
P&G challenged the claim “large 9 cm² treatment window” because they understood from their testing that it was only 4.5 cm². However, we understood that while the lamp size, from where light was emitted was 4.5 cm², the IPL light would shine the full length of the 9 cm² window. We also understood that IPL devices typically followed this design where the window was larger than the lamp itself, allowing the light to spread out and cover a broader area.
We therefore concluded that the claim “large 9 cm² treatment window” had been substantiated and was not misleading.
On that point, we investigated the ad under CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1 (Misleading advertising) and 3.7 (Substantiation), but did not find it in breach.
2. Upheld
The ad stated, “permanent hair reduction in just 12 weeks” and “permanent hair removal”. The ASA considered consumers would understand the first claim on its own, relating to hair “reduction”, to mean that after 12 weeks of treatment, they would achieve a decrease in hair growth lasting over a long period of time. However, the ad also included and repeated the claim “permanent hair removal”. We considered those claims relating to permanent hair “removal”. The overall impression created by the ad was that consumers would be able to achieve long-lasting hair removal because eventually there would be no regrowth.
In a controlled study with 37 participants, the effectiveness of the Foreo Peach device and cooling gel was evaluated over 12 weeks. The product group shaved their legs and armpits, used the Foreo Peach device and applied a cooling gel, while the control group only shaved with a razor. Weekly questionnaires using a five-point scale were completed by participants, and they visited the test centre at four, eight, and 12 weeks for a dermatologist's evaluation. The evaluation included using equipment to analyse hair growth parameters, along with an assessment on a six-point scale.
Two weeks after discontinuing the treatment, participants returned for a further evaluation. A final self-assessment was completed by participants three months after stopping the treatment. The study reported that at final self-assessment, 95% of participants said that their hair was still noticeably reduced.
We had concerns about the robustness of the study’s methodology. There was a lack of baseline data, as the hair density and type before shaving was not recorded in either group. It was therefore not possible to determine whether or not the changes observed post-treatment were significant. Additionally, we understood that skin tone and hair colour could impact the effectiveness of IPL. We therefore considered that the study should have taken this into account by ensuring it included participants with varied skin and hair types. However, skin type was not recorded, and it was therefore not possible to assess the study’s applicability to UK consumers. We also noted that while some objective testing measures were used, the participants' self-assessments were subjective and could be influenced by their expectations, perceptions and biases. Additionally, the dermatologists were not blinded as to which participants were in the treatment or control groups and the objectivity of their assessments could also therefore have been impacted.
For those reasons, we considered that the study was not adequate to substantiate the claim “permanent hair reduction in just 12 weeks”. Furthermore, because the study was limited to only a six-month period, it did not monitor whether hair reduction was sustained in the longer term, or whether hair was removed permanently. We therefore concluded the claims “permanent hair reduction in just 12 weeks” and “permanent hair removal” in the ads had not been substantiated and were misleading.
On that point, the ad breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1 (Misleading advertising), 3.7 (Substantiation) and 3.11 (Exaggeration).
3. Upheld
The ad stated that the device provided “pain-free IPL” treatments. We considered consumers would interpret this as meaning that the treatments would be completely free of any pain or discomfort.
According to Foreo, 100% of testers reported that the treatment was painless each week over the course of the eight weeks of treatment.
We assessed the provided study. Participants were asked to respond to the statement "The treatment was painless" on a five-point scale from "strongly agree" (5), through to "strongly disagree" (1). Their responses were recorded after each of their 12 weekly sessions, and after additional sessions at two weeks and three months after the final weekly session. The study interpreted responses of “strongly agree”, “slightly agree” and “agree” as affirmations that the treatment was painless. We considered the approach was not adequate to demonstrate that those participants who responded “agree” or “slightly agree” had not experienced some degree of pain or discomfort. Furthermore, the study reported that at weeks nine and 11 of the 12 weekly sessions, at least one participant had responded either “disagree” or “strongly disagree” to the statement "The treatment was painless".
Therefore, in addition to our concerns that the methodology of the study was not adequate to support the claim “pain-free IPL”, we noted its findings based on that methodology also did not support the claim. We concluded the claim “pain-free IPL” had not been substantiated and was therefore misleading.
On that point, the ad breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1 (Misleading advertising), 3.7 (Substantiation) and 3.11 (Exaggeration).
Action
The ad must not appear in the form complained of. We told Foreo AB t/a Foreo to ensure they did not state or imply that the IPL device could reduce or remove hair permanently unless they held adequate substantiation to support those claims. We also told them not to claim that the device’s treatments were “pain-free” unless they held adequate evidence to support that claim.
