Background
Summary of Council decision:
Three issues were investigated, all of which were Upheld.
Ad description
An advertorial for a cosmetics company, Nouveau Beauty Group, featured text that stated “This is NOT just micro - current This is nano-current. Improving skin health on a cellular level by Sally Durant … Nano-current comes with high medical credibility and clinically evidenced results. The modality originated through research into the treatment of degenerative diseases and has the remarkable ability to cause the skin cells to behave like they did when the client was younger. A-Lift works by literally recharging the skin cells by the stimulation of the mitochondria or ‘energy power plants’ within the cell’s cytoplasm. It achieves this by using a selection of electrical wave forms, currents and frequencies to stimulate the release of the energy carrier ATP (adenosine triphosphate) to fuel cellular metabolism, function and renewal at the different levels of the skin … it is essential not to overlook the effect of nano-current on the muscles. Muscle fibres are in fact elongated cells which will respond to nano-current in the same way as skin cells … So, in conclusion, can A-Lift nano-current outperform the staple micro-current machine we know and love? The answer is fundamentally yes …”.
Issue
CACI International challenged whether the following claims were misleading and could be substantiated:
1. “Nano-current comes with high medical credibility and clinically evidenced results” and “Muscle fibres are in fact elongated cells which will respond to nano-current in the same way as skin cells”;
2. that the A-Lift “stimulate[s] the release of the energy carrier ATP (adenosine triphosphate) to fuel cellular metabolism, function and renewal at the different levels of the skin”; and
3. “… can A-Lift nano-current outperform the staple micro-current machine we know and love? The answer is fundamentally yes”.
Response
1. Nouveau Beauty Group Ltd stated that the A-Lift machine used both microcurrent as well as nano-current technology to improve the condition of skin. They stated that the benefits of the machine’s nano-current range were demonstrated in the first report that they had provided, where the results had shown an increase in adenosine triphosphate (ATP) on Manine-Derby canine kidney cells, which Nouveau Beauty Group stated acted in a similar way to human cells.
Nouveau Beauty Group also provided a second report, which was written by the company that created the A-Lift device. The report provided details of a test, which Nouveau Beauty Group believed showed that the device emitted nano-current. Furthermore, Nouveau Beauty Group provided a video showing how the test was conducted.
Nouveau Beauty Group stated that they had undertaken other clinical trials on the machine, as well as obtaining opinions from beauty experts on its effectiveness, which included the author of the advertorial.
2. Nouveau Beauty Group stated that the results of the first report that they had provided substantiated the claim that the A-Lift “stimulate[s] the release of the energy carrier ATP (adenosine triphosphate) to fuel cellular metabolism, function and renewal at the different levels of the skin”.
3. Nouveau Beauty Group stated that the A-Lift’s combined use of micro-current and nano-current technology provided two different levels of treatment, which they believed provided better results than a micro-current machine. They stated that the claim, “… can A-Lift nano-current outperform the staple micro-current machine we know and love? The answer is fundamentally yes”, was based on the author’s own experience of using the machine. Furthermore, they believed that her experience of using the machine was supported by the technical information featured in the ad, which was provided by the inventor of the A-Lift.
Assessment
1. & 2. Upheld
The ASA understood that microcurrent therapy involved emitting small pulsating currents of electricity into the skin. We noted that Nouveau Beauty Group believed that the A-Lift machine not only emitted microcurrents, but also nano-current to improve the condition of skin on a cellular level and that this was demonstrated in the reports they had provided.
However, Nouveau Beauty Group had not provided an explanation as to what was meant by nano-current, along with evidence to show that the A-Lift machine used such technology. The reports indicated that the effectiveness of the A-Lift machine was being tested, but did not detail how the use of nano-current worked to improve the condition of skin.
We considered that consumers would interpret the marketing claims as meaning that the technology used by the A-Lift machine had been scientifically proven to work in the manner described, having tested its effects through normal use in in-vivo studies using human subjects.
Regarding the first report, we noted that it assessed the effect of the A-Lift machine on Madin-Darby canine kidney cells (MDCK). We understood that the two experiments detailed in the report were conducted to determine if the A-Lift machine had a measurable impact on the normal metabolism of MDCK cells and would be identified by colourimetric assay. Furthermore, we noted that the experiments were conducted in vitro; the MDCK cells were grown on glass coverslips and transferred into separate custom built chambers filled with phosphate-buffered saline. We understood that one chamber was connected to the A-Lift device while the other was not (for experimental control). We also noted that the report did not state whether the device had used both nano-current and microcurrent technology.
The second report along with the video, we understood, provided details of a test where the objective was to demonstrate that the A-Lift device produced nano-current and was to be measured via a picoammeter. We noted that the A-Lift device had various programmes, two of which were designed to emit nano-current and was picked up by the picoammeter in the test. However, the test was conducted by the company that created the A-Lift device, rather than being independently tested. Furthermore, we understood that the device was designed for use on the face, but noted that the subject’s forearm was used in the test. We also noted that the results were based on a test that was not double-blinded or controlled and involved one human subject, which we considered was not sufficient to demonstrate that the device worked in the way described in the ad.
Therefore, because Nouveau Beauty Group had not provided evidence to demonstrate the effectiveness of nano-current technology, we concluded that the claims “Nano-current comes with high medical credibility and clinically evidenced results”, “Muscle fibres are in fact elongated cells which will respond to nano-current in the same way as skin cells” and that the product “stimulate[s] the release of the energy carrier ATP (adenosine triphosphate) to fuel cellular metabolism, function and renewal at the different levels of the skin” had not been substantiated and were misleading.
On this point the ad breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules
3.1
3.1
Marketing communications must not materially mislead or be likely to do so.
(Misleading Advertising),
3.7
3.7
Before distributing or submitting a marketing communication for publication, marketers must hold documentary evidence to prove claims that consumers are likely to regard as objective and that are capable of objective substantiation. The ASA may regard claims as misleading in the absence of adequate substantiation.
(Substantiation),
3.11
3.11
Marketing communications must not mislead consumers by exaggerating the capability or performance of a product.
(Exaggeration) and
12.1
12.1
Objective claims must be backed by evidence, if relevant consisting of trials conducted on people. Substantiation will be assessed on the basis of the available scientific knowledge.
Medicinal or medical claims and indications may be made for a medicinal product that is licensed by the MHRA, VMD or under the auspices of the EMA, or for a CE-marked medical device. A medicinal claim is a claim that a product or its constituent(s) can be used with a view to making a medical diagnosis or can treat or prevent disease, including an injury, ailment or adverse condition, whether of body or mind, in human beings.
Secondary medicinal claims made for cosmetic products as defined in the appropriate European legislation must be backed by evidence. These are limited to any preventative action of the product and may not include claims to treat disease.
(Medicines, Medical Devices, Health-Related Products and Beauty Products).
3. Upheld
We noted that Nouveau Beauty Group stated that the claim “can A-Lift nano-current outperform the staple micro-current machine we know and love? The answer is fundamentally yes”, was based on the author’s own experience of using the A-Lift machine and the technical information featured in the ad. We considered, however, that it would be regarded by consumers as being a comparative claim that using the A-Lift machine would achieve better results than a microcurrent machine. However, we had not seen comparative data showing that this was the case.
Therefore, because Nouveau Beauty Group had not provided comparative data to substantiate the claim, “… can A-Lift nano-current outperform the staple micro-current machine we know and love? The answer is fundamentally yes”, we concluded that it was misleading.
On this point, the ad breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1 3.1 Marketing communications must not materially mislead or be likely to do so. (Misleading Advertising) and 3.33 3.33 Marketing communications that include a comparison with an identifiable competitor must not mislead, or be likely to mislead, the consumer about either the advertised product or the competing product. (Comparisons with Identifiable Competitors).
Action
The ad must not appear again in its current form. We told Nouveau Beauty Group Ltd to ensure that they held robust documentary evidence to support efficacy and comparative claims in their advertising.
