Background
Summary of Council decision:
Three issues were investigated, all of which were Upheld.
Ad description
Three paid-for Facebook ads for HIKE Footwear, seen in January 2024:
a. The first ad featured the name “Ivy K” next to five star symbols. Text below stated, "I had almost given up hope when neuropathy took over my life, but these barefoot shoes have been a turning point! As I started wearing them, I noticed my balance gradually returning day by day. The numbness and tingling sensations became less frequent. I can't express how grateful I am for these daily improvements. These shoes are more than just footwear; they're my path to recovery!". Text below this stated, “For a limited time, we're offering free shipping and a 12-month warranty with your purchase … Enhanced Sensory Feedback … Reduced Pressure Points … Improved Circulation”. Below was an image of hiking boots with overlaying text which stated, “MONEY BACK 100% GUARANTEE”.
b. The second ad featured the name “Eula K” next to five star symbols. Text below was the same testimonial as in ad (a). Below was an image of a person’s legs and feet next to a pair of shoes. Text overlaying the image stated “DOCTOR-RECOMMENDED SOLUTION FOR PLANTAR FASCIITIS … Reduced pressure points … Strengthens Foot Muscles … Natural Foot Movement”. At the bottom of the ad text stated, “Barefoot shoes for better health”.
c. The third ad featured the name “Essie E.” next to five star symbols. Text below stated, “"Battling plantar fasciitis left me drained until I discovered these barefoot shoes, suggested by a friend. Their arch support and natural flexibility restored my vitality! The pain lessened, and I reclaimed the pleasure of walking. These shoes were my saving grace against plantar fasciitis. Eternal gratitude!". Further text stated, “Enhanced Sensory Feedback … Reduced Pressure Points … Improved Circulation”. The ad featured a video of a man in a white doctor’s coat. His voice-over explained that HIKE footwear could improve foot pain and conditions such as neuropathy, plantar fasciitis, arthritis and bunions.
Issue
1. The complainant challenged whether the claim “100% MONEYBACK GUARANTEE” in ad (a) was misleading, because they had been unable to claim under the guarantee.The ASA challenged whether:
2. the ads made medical claims for unlicensed products; and
3. the testimonials in ads (a) and (b) were genuine.
Response
Hike Future Ltd t/a HIKE Footwear said they had removed the ads and ensured they would not be published again. They explained they would review their advertising practices to prevent similar issues arising in future. They further said that they had no record of the customer requesting money back as part of their return policy.
HIKE Footwear said that the testimonials in ads (a) and (b) were genuine reviews from their customers on their store and a review platform.
Assessment
1. Upheld
The CAP Code stated that marketing communications must not use the word "guarantee" in a way that could cause confusion about a consumer's rights and that marketers must promptly refund consumers who make valid claims under an advertised money-back guarantee.
The ASA considered that consumers would understand the claim “100% MONEYBACK GUARANTEE” in ad (a) to mean that they could receive a full refund if they were not happy with the product. Because we received no evidence from HIKE Footwear that they honoured the guarantee, and the complainant provided information showing that they had contacted them numerous times enquiring how to return the product, we concluded that the claim “100% MONEYBACK GUARANTEE” was misleading.
On that point, ad (a) breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1 (Misleading advertising), 3.7 (Substantiation), and 3.53, 3.54 and 3.55 (Guarantees and after-sales service).
2. Upheld
The CAP Code stated medicinal or medical claims and indications could only be made for a medicinal product that was licensed by the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA), the Veterinary Medicines Directorate (VMD) or under the auspices of the European Medicines Agency (EMA), or for a medical device with the applicable conformity marking. 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. We understood that the products in ads (a), (b) and (c) were not registered with the MHRA as medical devices.
We considered consumers would interpret the claims “Improved Circulation” and “I had almost given up hope when neuropathy took over my life, but these barefoot shoes have been a turning point! As I started wearing them, I noticed my balance gradually returning day by day. The numbness and tingling sensations became less frequent ...These shoes are more than just footwear; they're my path to recovery!”, in ad (a), as medical claims that the shoes could treat the conditions and symptoms listed. We further considered that consumers would interpret the claim “DOCTOR-RECOMMENDED SOLUTION FOR PLANTAR FASCIITIS”, in ad (b), as a medical claim that the shoes could treat that condition.
Lastly, we considered consumers would also interpret the claims “These shoes were my saving grace against plantar fasciitis”, “Improved Circulation” and the voice-over that explained HIKE Footwear could improve foot pain and conditions such as neuropathy, plantar fasciitis, arthritis and bunions, in ad (c), as medical claims that the shoes could treat those conditions and symptoms.Because the ad made medical claims, it was therefore necessary for the product to meet the requirements for medical devices. However, as explained above, because we understood the product was not registered with the MHRA, nor had we seen any evidence that it had the applicable conformity marking, we therefore considered that no medical claims could be made for the product, and we concluded that the ads breached the Code.On that point, the ads breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rule 12.1 (Medicines, medical devices, health-related products and beauty products).
3. Upheld
The CAP Code stated that marketers must hold documentary evidence that a testimonial or endorsement used in a marketing communication was genuine, unless it was obviously fictitious, and hold contact details for the person who gave it.We considered that consumers would interpret the testimonials in ads (a) and (b), which featured the names “Ivy K” and “Eula K”, as being genuine testimonials for the product. We acknowledged HIKE Footwear’s comment that the testimonials in ads (a) and (b) were authentic. However, we had not received any evidence that the testimonials were genuine or received any contact details for the people who gave them. Furthermore, the testimonials were exactly the same, despite being attributed to different people. We therefore concluded that they were misleading.On that point, ads (a) and (b) breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1 (Misleading advertising) and 3.45 (Endorsements and testimonials).
Action
The ads must not appear again in their current form. We told Hike Future Ltd t/a HIKE Footwear to ensure that future ads did not claim there was a 100% money-back guarantee if not all valid refund requests were honoured. We told them not to make medical claims for products that did not have the applicable conformity marking and were not registered with the MHRA. Furthermore, they should not imply testimonials were genuine if that was not the case.
CAP Code (Edition 12)
3.1 3.7 3.53 3.54 3.55 12.1 3.1 3.45
