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
A paid-for Facebook ad for Lasik Eyes, published on 9 May 2024, featured a caption which stated, “LOOKING FOR: People over the age of 65 living in the UK who are interested in our REVOLUTIONARY laser eye procedure”. In a video below the caption, a woman addressing the camera stated, “We're looking for people in the UK who are interested in this revolutionary laser eye surgery procedure. Almost all patients have achieved 20/20 vision with this brilliant procedure and it's all over in a matter of minutes. Tap below to see if you're eligible.” A link labelled “Learn more” was seen under the video.
The link led to a website, web.lasik-eyes.co.uk, which was presented as an advertorial article. Headline text at the top of the page stated, “Rapid Advances in Corrective Eye Surgery Have Made It More Effective Than Ever Before”, beneath which was a photo of a woman undergoing an eye examination. Further text on the page stated, “A quick, virtually painless procedure […] With thousands of patients choosing Lasik Eyes to help them transform their vision each year […] Quick Procedure, Lasting Benefits”.
Under the subheading “Who should I work with?” further text stated, “One of the most trusted and effective free online services is Lasik Eyes which finds Britain’s leading optical surgeons in your local area. Our partners currently have more than 300 free consultations available”. Various links found on the page brought up a series of questions to answer, which included entering an email address and phone number. When completed, a referral was generated telling consumers they would be contacted to arrange a free laser eye consultation.
Issue
The ASA challenged whether the:
- ad was misleading regarding the nature of the content that it linked through to, and that it falsely implied the marketer was acting for purposes outside its business; and
- claims “revolutionary laser eye procedure”, “Almost all patients have achieved 2020 vision”, “it's all over in a matter of minutes”, “More effective than ever before”, and “virtually painless” misleadingly exaggerated the capability of LASIK treatment.
Response
1. Marketing VF Ltd t/a Lasik Eyes confirmed that they operated as a lead generation service, connecting consumers with qualified eye surgery providers, and that they did not directly offer laser-eye surgery procedures themselves. They believed that the ad clearly communicated that they were a lead generation company. They said the statement “We're looking for people in the UK who are interested in this revolutionary laser eye surgery procedure” had been intended to inform consumers about laser eye surgery as a procedure offered by providers they partnered with, rather than to suggest that Lasik Eyes were themselves a provider.
Lasik Eyes accepted that it was essential for consumers to recognise their role as a lead generation service. They highlighted the language used in their ad; the ad referred to “our partners” and stated that Lasik Eyes “finds Britain’s leading optical surgeons in your local area”, which they further believed clarified their status as a service connecting users with providers, rather than acting as a direct surgical service. They also said they had included a disclaimer on the landing page to make the nature of their business and the commercial intent of their ads clear.
Lasik Eyes said that they matched consumers based on their requirements and eligibility for certain suppliers. They confirmed that, at the time of the complaint, they only had one live provider available through their laser eye surgery campaign, but that consumers were informed of that by the number of potential matches returned to them. Their aim was to offer consumers a variety of options over time, as additional partners joined their platform.
2. Lasik Eyes believed that the claims seen in the ad were supported by reputable sources and accurately reflected the typical patient experience of laser eye surgery procedures.
They said the claim “revolutionary laser eye procedure” reflected the technology used by their provider partner, which they said was recognised as industry leading. Improved precision, minimised surgical times and reduced recovery periods. They referred to their partners website, which contained details of the technology used in their procedures.
Regarding the claim “Almost all patients have achieved 20/20 vision”, Lasik Eyes referred to an informational website’s article which stated that research from 2016 had shown that 99% of patients who had undergone LASIK eye surgery had achieved 20/40 vision or better, and more than 90% had achieved 20/20 vision.
They said the claim “it's all over in a matter of minutes” aligned with NHS information which advised that LASIK eye surgery usually took between 20 and 30 minutes, depending on the specific procedure.
In relation to the claim “More Effective Than Ever Before”, Lasik Eyes referred to an article published by the same informational website as above. This article stated that technological advancements had significantly improved the outcomes and safety of vision correction surgeries, and that research had shown that recent technological improvements have made corrective surgery safer and more effective.
They said that the “virtually painless” claim was based on an article published by a well-known eye hospital, which stated that LASIK and similar laser procedures were generally painless, with only minimal, short-term discomfort, usually lasting four to six hours post-surgery, with most patients able to return to regular activities the following day.
While Lasik Eyes believed those articles supported the claims made in their ad, they said they were willing to make changes to the wording of their claims to better represent general but not guaranteed outcomes. They also said they were willing to add more prominent wording that reminded consumers of individual variances, and that outcomes could vary based on personal health, and would strengthen their internal framework to ensure a consistent culture of compliance with the CAP Code in future.
Assessment
1. 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.
The ASA considered that the ad presented Lasik Eyes as a provider of laser eye surgery. The caption referred to “our REVOLUTIONARY laser eye procedure” and the individual in the video stated, “We're looking for people in the UK who are interested in this revolutionary laser eye surgery procedure.” We considered consumers would interpret those statements, especially the references to “our” and “we’re”, to mean that Lasik Eyes had developed their own proprietary laser eye surgery and, as such, consumers would understand that Lasik Eyes were a qualified provider of laser eye surgery. Later in the video consumers were encouraged to “Tap below to see if you’re eligible”, which we considered reinforced the impression that Lasik Eyes offered laser eye surgery, and consumers would understand that, by clicking on the link, Lasik Eyes would assess their eligibility for any such surgery.
The landing page linked to by the Facebook ad included text near the top of the page which stated, “With thousands of patients choosing Lasik Eyes to help them transform their vision each year”. We considered consumers would understand that to mean Lasik Eyes had directly helped to improve patients’ vision by carrying out the laser eye surgery themselves. Furthermore, the landing page invited consumers to select their birth year from a list and click through to check their suitability for laser eye surgery. Again, we considered that would give consumers the impression that Lasik Eyes were qualified to assess suitability for surgery, and that they provided the treatment directly.
We understood, however, that Lasik Eyes was a lead generation service that passed on consumers’ details to third-party laser eye surgery providers, rather than providing those services themselves, and that they received commission for doing so.We acknowledged that text further down the landing page stated, “Lasik Eyes […] finds Britain’s leading optical surgeons in your local area” and “Our partners currently have more than 300 free consultations available”. However, that information was located further down the page, and did not explicitly state that Lasik Eyes were a lead generation company. We therefore considered that those statements were not prominent or clear enough to change the overall impression that Lasik Eyes provided the laser eye surgery. We also noted that the Facebook ad did not include any information which indicated that Lasik Eyes was a lead generation company. We therefore considered that neither the Facebook ad nor the subsequent landing page had prominently or explicitly made that, or their commercial intent, clear.
The ad did not make immediately clear that they were principally a lead generation company that received commission for connecting consumers with laser eye surgery providers, and instead suggested they provided treatment directly. We therefore concluded that the ad implied that Lasik Eyes were acting for purposes outside their business and did not make clear their commercial intent. The ad therefore breached the Code.
On that point, the ad breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rule 2.3 (Recognition of Marketing Communications).
2. 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 be careful when making claims about how advanced or innovative their procedures were, that they should not state or imply that it was always successful, or that recovery from laser eye surgery would be immediate. It also advised marketers against making claims that laser eye surgery was completely safe, or free from side effects.
The ad, and landing page linked to from the ad, included claims about the efficacy and nature of the laser eye surgery; for example, “our revolutionary laser eye procedure” and “more effective than ever before”. From those claims, we considered consumers would understand the advertised laser eye treatment was a new and innovative type of laser eye surgery and that it was more advanced than those available by other laser eye surgery providers. Furthermore, within the context of offering an advanced treatment, we considered that consumers would interpret the claim “almost all patients have achieved 20/20 vision” to mean they would likely attain perfect, or nearly perfect vision, after treatment.
In addition, we considered consumers would understand from the ad that there were little to no side effects as a result of laser eye surgery. The ad stated, “it’s all over in a matter of minutes” which we considered implied that the procedure, and its recovery time, was complete within a very short period, and that normal day-to-day activities could be resumed immediately after treatment. The ad also stated that the procedure was “virtually painless”, which we considered implied that patients would not experience any side effects, and that in cases where patients did experience side effects, they were likely to be insignificant.
We therefore expected Lasik Eyes would be able to demonstrate that their advertised procedure was an innovative form of laser eye surgery, that it would result in perfect vision, its procedure and recovery time was almost immediate, and that significant side effects would not be experienced.
We assessed the evidence supplied to us by the advertiser. We first examined the website of the partner laser eye surgery clinic, provided to demonstrate the technology underpinning the procedure. It stated that the procedure was carried out using two different lasers, which we understood were used in LASIK surgery. We further understood that LASIK was a commonly performed and well-established type of laser eye surgery and, on that basis, we considered that it, alone, did not represent a new or innovative form of laser eye surgery. Because we did not receive any further evidence demonstrating the advertised procedure was industry leading, we considered that the use of the word “revolutionary” had the effect of exaggerating how advanced the procedure was and, therefore, was likely to mislead.
Next, we assessed the eye-health website provided to substantiate the efficacy of LASIK surgery. We noted that it referred to research from 2016 that had shown 99% of patients who had undergone LASIK eye surgery had achieved 20/40 vision or better, and more than 90% had achieved 20/20 vision. While we acknowledged that most patients who underwent laser eye surgery experienced an improvement in their vision, we were not provided with the full study and as such we were unable to assess the sample used, specifically the eyesight or ocular health of those included in the research. Furthermore, we understood that individuals who had achieved 20/20 vision as a result of laser eye surgery may continue to experience or develop other vision issues, such as light scatter side effects, which we considered were significant issues that could affect an individual’s quality of vision. We were not provided with any evidence to demonstrate the occurrence of such side effects following surgery. For those reasons, we considered that the evidence supplied was insufficient to demonstrate the efficacy claims as they would be understood by consumers.
Next, we assessed the NHS advice on laser eye surgery provided to substantiate claims regarding the duration of laser eye surgery. It stated that the procedure usually took between 20 and 30 minutes depending on the specific technique used. We acknowledged that laser eye surgery was typically an outpatient operation, and that patients were able to return home on the same day as the surgery. However, the advice also discussed the recovery period after surgery; for instance, it stated that patients would not be able to drive on the day of their surgery or be able to drive at night until their eyes had recovered. It also referred to several side effects which were likely to impact upon an individual’s recovery time. We therefore considered that there was a recovery period following laser eye surgery and that, while it was not a considerable length of time, recovery would not be immediate, and day-to-day activities may be impacted as a result. Because the ad implied that recovery from laser eye surgery was immediate and day-to-day activities could be resumed following surgery, when that was not the case, we considered that it was misleading.
Finally, we assessed the article explaining different laser eye surgery techniques published by a well-known eye hospital. The article stated that patients did not feel pain but, rather, experienced a feeling of pressure and mild discomfort which continued for four to six hours after surgery. While we acknowledged that patients were unlikely to be in pain, we considered that patients were likely to feel a certain level of discomfort during and after the procedure. In addition, the NHS advice referenced above stated that it was commonplace to encounter a number of side effects, including dry eyes, after the procedure and, furthermore, that there was a chance of complications both during and after the operation. Because we understood that it was commonplace to experience side effects after laser eye surgery, when the ad implied that was not the case, we considered the ad gave consumers a misleading impression of the potential outcomes of laser eye surgery, including with regards to pain.
Given the above, we considered that the claims “revolutionary laser eye procedure”, “Almost all patients have achieved 20/20 vision”, “it's all over in a matter of minutes”, “More effective than ever before” and “virtually painless” 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).
Action
The ad must not appear again in its current form. We told Marketing VF Ltd t/a Lasik Eyes 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. We also told them to ensure that future marketing materials did not misleadingly exaggerate the capability of LASIK treatment.
