Background
This Ruling forms part of a wider piece of work on laser eye surgery referral companies. The ad was identified for investigation following intelligence gathered by our Active Ad Monitoring system.
Summary of Council decision:
Two issues were investigated, both of which were Upheld.
Ad description
Two paid-for Facebook ads for Health Line published on 17 May 2024:
a. The caption in the first ad stated, “Tired of Contacts? Get Permanent Freedom with LASIK”. The ad also included an image of an individual wearing glasses and rubbing their eyes, alongside text that stated, “IT’S TIME TO LET GO OF YOUR EYE GLASSES. LASIK EYE SURGERY IS THE BEST SOLUTION. No Side Effects. Smaller text at the bottom of the ad stated, “LASIKEYESURGERYUK.TOP. Glasses or Contacts? LASIK Offers a Better Way. Check now for more details”.
b. The caption in the second ad stated, “Safe & Effective LASIK Eye Surgery. Free Consultation Available. (Get 50% Off)”. The ad also included an image of a laser on an eye, alongside text that stated, “Transform Your Vision With LASIK EYE SURGERY. Find The Best LASIK Surgeon Near You. 50% OFF”. Smaller text at the bottom of the ad stated, “LASIKEYESURGERYUK.TOP. Perfect Vision is Possible! Get LASIK Today !”.
The link led to a website, lasikeyesurgeryuk.top, which contained a series of additional links that stated, “Turkey Laser Eye Surgery”, “Laser Eye Surgery Turkey”, “Lasik Surgery Cost Nearby”, “Lasik Eye Surgery Near Me” and “Eye Laser Treatment London”.
Issue
The ASA challenged whether:
- the claims “Tired of contacts? Get Permanent Freedom with LASIK” and “No Side Effects” in ad (a), and “Safe & Effective LASIK Eye Surgery” and “Perfect Vision is Possible” in ad (b) misleadingly exaggerated the capability of LASIK treatment; and
- ad (b) was misleading regarding the nature of the content that it linked through to, and falsely implied the marketer was acting for purposes outside its business.
Response
1. Health Line said their intent with the claim “Tired of Contacts? Get Permanent Freedom with LASIK” was to highlight that LASIK could reduce dependence on contact lenses. They recognised that the phrase “Permanent Freedom” might have misleadingly suggested results were guaranteed and lifelong for all patients, which was not always the case.Health Line acknowledged that the claim “No Side Effects” was inaccurate, because all medical procedures carried potential risks. In addition, they explained, by stating “Safe & Effective LASIK Eye Surgery” they had intended to communicate that LASIK was generally considered safe and effective, but acknowledged the need to avoid implying it was suitable for everyone without exception.Health Line also accepted that the claim “Perfect Vision is Possible” might mislead, because outcomes varied among individuals. They said they understood that claims in the ads might have exaggerated the benefits and overlooked the risks associated with laser eye surgery, and that they would remove or modify claims that suggested guaranteed outcomes or a lack of risk. They also said they would in future provide balanced information that accurately reflected both the potential benefits and limitations of laser eye surgery.
2. Health Line said they did not offer laser eye surgery directly, and nor did they provide medical consultations or the ability to book appointments through their website. They connected consumers with third-party providers who offered laser eye surgery services. They acknowledged that a number of the claims in ad (a) could be interpreted as suggesting they offered those services directly, and said they would clearly state in future ads that they connected consumers with third parties. They would also ensure that any promotional claims were accurately attributed to the respective providers and were presented in a way that did not imply Health Line offered surgery directly. They said they would apply CAP’s guidance on lead generation marketing to their future advertising.
Assessment
1. Upheld
The CAP Code stated that marketing communications must not mislead consumers by exaggerating the capability or performance of a product. CAP guidance on ads for laser eye surgery stated that marketers should not state or imply that the procedure was permanent, suitable for all patients or all types of eye problems, that it was always successful or that the patient would never need glasses or contact lenses. It also advised marketers against making claims that laser eye surgery was completely safe, or free from side effects.Both ads included claims about the permanence and efficacy of laser eye surgery. Ad (a) featured the claim “Tired of contacts? Get Permanent Freedom with LASIK”, while ad (b) stated, “Perfect Vision is Possible!”. From those claims, we considered consumers would understand that the advertised LASIK eye surgery would offer a permanent outcome, meaning they would never need to wear contact lenses again, and that they would likely attain perfect, or nearly perfect vision, after the treatment. The ads also made claims about the lack of side effects associated with laser eye surgery. Ad (a) stated, “No Side Effects” and ad (b) included the claim “Safe & Effective LASIK Eye Surgery”, which we considered consumers would understand to mean that they would experience few to no side effects from having the procedure. We further considered that the overall tone and presentation of the ads, and the claims seen in them, would likely give consumers the impression that laser eye surgery was effective for all patients.
We therefore expected that Health Line would be able to demonstrate that their advertised treatment would offer a permanent outcome, meaning that those who underwent the procedure would never need to wear contact lenses or glasses again, that they would experience no side effects from the procedure, that it would result in perfect vision, and that it was suitable for all patients. However, we did not receive any evidence to substantiate the claims made in the ad.
While we acknowledged Health Line’s response to the complaint and welcomed their willingness to make changes to their advertising, we concluded that the claims “Get Permanent Freedom with LASIK”, “No Side Effects”, “Safe & Effective” and “Perfect Vision is Possible” were misleading, and had exaggerated the capability of LASIK eye surgery.
On that point, the ad breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1 (Misleading advertising), 3.7 (Substantiation) and 3.11 (Exaggeration).
2. Upheld
The CAP Code stated that marketing communications must not falsely claim or imply that the marketer was acting for purposes outside its trade, business, craft or profession. It further stated that marketing communications must make clear their commercial intent if that was not obvious from the context.Text in ad (b) stated, “Free Consultation Available”, “(Get 50% Off)”, “50% off” and “Get LASIK Today!” We considered consumers, therefore, would expect that the ad linked directly to a page where they could access further information on offers and prices on LASIK surgery from specific clinics. We further considered that the reference to a free consultation reinforced the impression that Health Line offered laser eye surgery, and consumers would understand that, by clicking on the link, Health Line would assess their eligibility for any such surgery.
However, when clicked on, the ad took consumers to a landing page that featured a number of subheadings, including “Eye Surgery to Correct Vision Cost”, “Lasik Plus Surgery Cost”, Lasik Around Me” and “Optical Examination”.
Instead, we understood that the landing page for the ad was a ‘parked domain’ website set up by Better Health and Wellness. We understood that domain parking was the registration of an internet domain name without that domain being associated with services such as email or a website. Domain parking could be done for various reasons, including reserving the domain name for future development or to protect the domain name from use by others. Domain parking could also be monetised by operating a single-page website which hosted ads, as was the case here. Ads which linked through to the parked domain website would then generate income for the host of the parked domain through the impressions it collected.
The ad therefore misleadingly implied that when clicked on, it would direct consumers to information on consultations, offers and prices on LASIK surgery from specific clinics, when that was not the case. We considered the nature of the content the ad linked through to would likely have a significant impact on whether or not consumers chose to engage with them. We therefore considered that the nature of the content the ad linked through to should have been made clear, and because it did not do so, we concluded that the ad was misleading.
On that point, ad (b) breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rule 2.3 (Recognition of Marketing Communications).
Action
The ads must not appear again in their current form. We told Health Line to ensure that future marketing materials did not misleadingly exaggerate the capability of LASIK treatment. We also told them to ensure that future marketing materials did not falsely imply they were acting for purposes outside their business, not to imply that they directly provided laser eye surgery if they did not, and to make clear that they were a referral company that received commission for their service.
