Background
Summary of Council decision:
Three issues were investigated, all of which were Upheld.
Ad description
A paid-for Instagram ad for the LYMA Laser, a home beauty device, seen in January 2024, compared the product to LED masks. The headline claim stated, “Ok wasting your money on LED masks? Then the LYMA Laser is probably not for you”. The caption stated, “The world’s most powerful home beauty device is 100x more effective than LED masks and able to turn back the aging clock, transforming skin in weeks, in your own home”. It contained a list, bulleted by tick emojis, that included “100x more powerful than LED”, “Thousands of transformational 5 [star emoji] reviews” and “Anti-aging. Wrinkles. Skin Elasticity. Scars. Redness. Pigmentation”.
Issue
The complainant challenged whether the following efficacy claims, which compared the LYMA Laser to LED and other beauty devices, were misleading and could be substantiated:1. “world’s most powerful home beauty device”;2. “100x more effective than LED masks”; and3. “100x more powerful than LED”.Response
1. Lyma Life Ltd said that the “most powerful” claim was based on the power output and power density of the device. They explained that their internal Compliance team conducted monthly research on the beauty device market, monitoring the power specifications of any new devices on the market and any current product updates. The research was conducted online, mainly relying on websites that they considered to be the four biggest online retailers of beauty devices. They provided a table which they said identified the five most powerful light therapy devices for at home use, including the LYMA device, with categories for wavelength, total power and power per cm squared (power density). The table showed that the LYMA Laser was the most powerful device with 500 mW total power output and 62.5 mW power per cm squared.2. & 3. Lyma Life explained that the claims that compared the LYMA Laser device with LED were based on the different properties of laser and LED light. They explained that laser light was a coherent, polarised light form, which allowed it to reach the base layers of the skin, while LED light generally had lower power output and emitted light in an omnidirectional pattern such that experts estimated that 95% of the light bounces off the surface of the skin. They stated that the LYMA Laser, which operated at 808 nm wavelength, was therefore more effective than equivalent LED wavelengths. They supplied two independent peer-reviewed in vitro studies which they believed supported the claims that compared their device with LED masks and other LED powered devices. They also supplied three peer reviewed articles that cited one of the studies.Lyma Life said that the near-infrared laser in the LYMA device was sufficiently novel to mean that there were not many clinical studies which examined such lasers as a source of photobiomodulation. They said that existing clinical studies assessing the efficacy of LED based light therapy were either quasi-quantitative or qualitative in nature, and it was therefore impossible to compare them with each other or against their own data for the LYMA device. They added that those studies were industry sponsored and had methodological flaws which made them unreliable. In contrast, they believed that in vitro and pre-clinical studies were the highest quality studies available on the subject; they believed such studies were rigorous in methodological quality and designed to account for confounding variables. They highlighted that extensive comparisons of laser and LED based bio-stimulation had been conducted across in vitro and pre-clinical studies.Furthermore, they explained the use of a near-infrared laser to treat wrinkles and lines was a recent discovery, and therefore the evidence supplied related to the wound healing process. They said the results were transferrable to skin rejuvenation because, in essence, the skin underwent the same physiological process.Assessment
1. UpheldThe claim “world’s most powerful home beauty device” appeared twice in the ad: by itself, and within a sentence that referenced the effectiveness of the device, specifically its ability to “turn back the aging clock” and “transform […] skin in weeks”. The ASA considered consumers would understand the claim to mean that the LYMA Laser was the strongest and most effective device for treating the visible signs of aging when compared to all other home beauty devices. That impression was reinforced by the bulleted list underneath the claim which referred to “thousands of transformational 5 [star emoji] reviews” and the effects of aging on skin, such as “Wrinkles”, “Skin Elasticity” and “Pigmentation”, as well as a direct reference to “Anti-aging”, in addition to other skin conditions such as “Scars” and “Redness”. In addition, we considered that the headline claim, “Ok wasting your money on LED masks? Then the LYMA Laser is probably not for you” further implied that the LYMA Laser delivered superior results to all other LED masks on the market. We therefore expected Lyma Life to hold objective evidence to support the claim that their device was the most effective on the market for treating the visible signs of aging and the other skin conditions listed in the ad.In support of the claim, Lyma Life provided a table that they said identified the five most powerful light therapy devices for at-home use. For each device, there was information on its wavelength, total power and power density (power per cm squared). We assessed the data supplied in the table; it showed that the LYMA Laser had 25% and 56% more power density respectively than two home beauty devices that were identified as being the next “most powerful” on the market. We understood that the technology of the LYMA Laser was based on a process called photobiomodulation ? i.e., the use of low-level light energy to trigger photochemical changes in cells. However, the efficacy of that process in such devices was dependent on a combination of other factors, such as the wavelength of the light source, energy dose, energy density and the duration of application. We understood that power density was not, on its own, a measure of the performance capability of each of the listed devices. For that reason, we considered that the evidence provided was not relevant to the way in which consumers would interpret “most powerful” within the context of the ad and was, therefore, insufficient to substantiate the claim.In any case, we noted that the table compared the LYMA Laser with four other at-home light therapy devices. We considered that there were many other home beauty light therapy devices on the market and that the data provided to us was, therefore, far from an exhaustive list of home beauty devices available to UK consumers. Because we were only provided with data for four other devices, we considered the evidence did not demonstrate that the LYMA Laser was the most powerful home beauty device on the market.We acknowledged Lyma Life’s comments that they regularly monitored the specifications of other devices offered by the companies seen in the comparison table to ensure they accounted for any product upgrades. However, we understood that the different websites that they relied upon for their research were inconsistent in the data that was available for each of the devices. We noted that the table did not include all of the data points for every listed device. For example, we were not provided with information related to the total power of two of the devices, nor were we provided with the power per cm squared of another of the listed devices. We understood that the comparative claim was based on the power density of the devices, and because we were not provided with that information for every device, we considered the evidence provided was not sufficient to substantiate the claim.Furthermore, we did not receive evidence in the form of controlled studies on humans demonstrating the superior efficacy of the LYMA device to reduce the visible signs of aging, scarring or redness.Because we considered consumers would interpret the claim in terms of the device’s efficacy, rather than its physical power output, we concluded that the evidence did not adequately substantiate the claim “world’s most powerful beauty device” as it was likely to be understood by consumers and that the ad therefore was misleading.On that point, the ad breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1 (Misleading advertising), 3.7 (Substantiation), 3.33 (Comparative advertising) and 12.1 (Medicines, medical devices, health related products and beauty products).2. & 3. UpheldWe considered that consumers would understand the claims “100x more effective than LED masks” and “100x more powerful than LED” as direct comparisons between the advertised product and LED masks and LED-powered beauty devices with the same intended purpose. Within the context of the ad, which referred to the device’s ability to “transform” skin and specifically referenced wrinkles, skin elasticity, scars, redness and pigmentation, we considered the claims would be understood to mean that the LYMA Laser was 100 times more effective than LED masks at treating those areas and the laser technology within the device was 100 times more effective than a LED device. We therefore expected the advertiser to hold evidence in the form of controlled experimental human studies demonstrating that the LYMA Laser was 100 times more effective than at-home LED devices.The advertiser supplied two peer reviewed studies to support the claims and three further peer reviewed studies which cited one of those studies. However, because those three further studies were only provided in support of the quality of the first study supplied by the advertiser, and were not directly relevant to the claims seen in the ad, we could not take them into account.We examined the first study supplied by the advertiser. The in vitro study compared the application of two different light sources ? a red light and a near infrared light ? at three different energy densities on human keratinocyte cells, the principal cell type in outermost layer of skin, and fibroblast cells from mice, which are cells found in connective tissue. The aim of the study was to determine the energy dose and wavelength of light most effective at accelerating the wound healing process in those two specific cell types.In assessing the study, we noted that the light sources were from two different diode lasers ? a 655-nm diode laser was used for the red-light source and an 808-nm diode laser was used for the near infrared-light source. Because the claims in the ad directly compared the performance of the LYMA Laser with LED, and the study only compared the performance of two different lasers, we considered that it was not relevant to the claims made in the ad. Furthermore, the study was designed to observe the wound healing process of cells and did not assess the function of cells in terms of anti-aging processes or for the cosmetic treatment of redness, pigmentation and scarring. We noted, from Lyma Life’s response, that they believed the wound healing process carried out by human cells was sufficiently similar to that which would be necessary to reduce the appearance of wrinkles, redness, pigmentation and scarring, and consequently, the study could be used to demonstrate the effect of the light sources on the listed cosmetic conditions in the ad. However, we were not provided with evidence to demonstrate that was the case, and as such, we considered the study was not related to the cosmetic treatment claims seen in the ad. In addition, we noted that the study had been conducted in vitro and that the sample, in part, relied on mice cells. While we acknowledged that in vitro tests could be useful for research, they could not always be extrapolated to suggest any effects seen would be identical or even similar in vivo. We therefore considered that the results of an in vitro assessment, partially using animal cells, were not sufficient to substantiate the efficacy of the device in human subjects.We then examined the second study supplied by the advertiser. The in vitro study compared the application of a laser light source (helium-neon laser) and thermal light source (halogen lamp) on human white blood cells to understand the immunosuppressive effect of the light sources; namely, whether they could partially or completely suppress the cells’ immune response, which would be useful, for example, in delaying the rejection of an organ transplant. However, we understood that the physiological process for suppressing the cells’ immune response was unrelated to the process required to improve skin elasticity and reduce wrinkles, scars, redness and pigmentation. We therefore considered that the measured outcomes and results of that study were unrelated to the efficacy or performance of the LYMA Laser in relation to the beauty claims seen in the ad. Furthermore, the study was performed using a gas laser with a wavelength of 632.8 nm and a thermal halogen lamp. In contrast, we understood that the LYMA Laser was a near infrared laser with a wavelength of 808 nm and the comparative claims in the ad related to LED devices, rather than halogen lamps. Because the devices used in the study were not equivalent to the laser and LED devices referenced in the ad, we considered the results of the study were not representative of the performance of the LYMA Laser or LED home beauty devices. Again, we noted that the study was conducted in vitro, and consequently, was not sufficient to substantiate the efficacy of the device in human subjects. We therefore considered that study was also insufficient to demonstrate the efficacy of the LYMA device.We concluded that we had not received sufficient evidence to substantiate that the LYMA Laser was “100x more effective than LED masks” or that the technology used by the LYMA Laser was “100x more powerful than LED” and that therefore the claims were misleading.On that point, the ad breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1 (Misleading advertising), 3.7 (Substantiation), 3.33 (Comparative advertising) and 12.1 (Medicines, medical devices, health related products and beauty products).Action
The ad must not appear in its current form. We told Lyma Life Ltd to ensure they did not make claims about the efficacy or performance of the LYMA Laser in the absence of adequate substantiation.
CAP Code (Edition 12)
3.1 3.7 3.33 12.1 1.3 1.10 22.12 1.3 1.10 22.12 1.3 22.12 1.7 15.6 15.6.2 15.6.6 15.7 15.1 15.2 15.6 15.1.1 15.6.2
