Background
Summary of Council decision:
Four issues were investigated, all of which were Upheld.
Ad description
A paid-for Google ad and website for Good Health Today, and a website for Urhealth-matters:
a. The paid-for Google ad, seen on 6 December 2021, included text which stated “Depression Treatment & Help – Depression Relief from £295.00” and “Fast Effective Treatment Help for Depression. View our client comments on how our treatment has helped to change their life. Get Help. Enquire Now”.
b. The website www.goodhealthtoday.co.uk, seen on 6 December 2021, included the heading “Mental & Physical Health problems will only get worse if left untreated, Get Help Today…”. Text underneath stated “Good Health Today is an equipment based therapy that helps to improve mental and physical health by helping to correct the underlying areas of Dysregulation causing conditions such as Depression, Anxiety, Stress, Fibromyalgia, Chronic Fatigue and many other conditions”.
Under the heading “No Counselling or Medication Required”, text stated “Most of our clients had already been to see their GP, tried counselling or medications and were still suffering […] and found our treatment helped when nothing else did”.
Under the heading “The Best Results”, text stated “We have the best treatment results in the industry”.
Under the heading “13 Non-Residential Treatment Centres”, text stated “Due to our success and outstanding results we have 13 treatment centres around the UK” and listed 13 locations.
Under the heading “Treatment Session”, text stated “We scan the body’s main systems for areas of dysregulation then run the appropriate treatment programs to help to correct them, with industry leading results*”. Underneath this were six cartoon drawings of people in different scenarios that related to the health condition that was written beneath the image. The conditions included, “Fibromyalgia”, “Fatigue”, “Depression”, “PTSD”, “Anxiety/Stress” and “ADHD”.
Further text on the page included “We can help end the daily struggle of feeling depressed, anxious, tired, in pain, traumatised etc […]”. Under the heading “Research – Dysregulation”, text included “[…] conditions such as Anxiety, Stress or Depression are caused due to a ‘Dysregulated Nervous System’ which explains why counseling [sic] or medications often don’t help. […] Our treatment is a simple solution to help correct and re-balance these areas of dysregulation […]”.
The page included a section headed “Some Results…” and included testimonials from clients. Many of the testimonials included claims from clients about the improvements they experienced in the conditions mentioned above. Some testimonials also referred to other conditions including “Long Covid”, migraines, irritable bowel syndrome (IBS), obsessive compulsive disorder (OCD), seasonal affective disorder (SAD), and pain. All of the testimonials included an asterisk at the end.
Underneath the testimonials, text stated “[…] we achieve excellent results, we can help without the need for counselling or medication, fast effective treatment help […]” and “Most people have tried counseling [sic] and/or medications which haven’t helped”.
The asterisks linked to text at the bottom of the page that stated “Individual experiences may vary, this treatment is not a cure”. Further text at the bottom of the page stated “We do not offer diagnosis or assessments”.
c. The website www.urhealth-matters.com, seen on 7 April 2022, included the heading “There is no need to struggle with Mental or Physical Health problems, Get Help Today…”. Text underneath included “[…] our advanced equipment based therapy that helps to improve Mental and Physical Health by correcting the underlying cause of conditions such as Depression, Anxiety, Stress, Trauma, Bipolar, OCD, BPD, ADHD Fibromyalgia, Chronic Fatigue and many other conditions”.
Underneath, larger text stated “No Counselling or Medication Required”.
Under the heading “12 Non-Residential Treatment Centres”, the same locations as referenced in ad (b) were listed, except for one.
Under the heading “Advanced Treatment for the Best Results”, text included “[…] most of our clients had suffered long term and had been to see their GP, tried all the usual talking therapies, counseling [sic], magnets, gadgets or medications and were still suffering […] but found our treatment helped when nothing else did due to our advanced approach”.
Under the heading “Invest in Yourself”, text included “Our treatment is the only method capable of helping with multiple conditions quickly in just one treatment session, hence why we achieve such amazing results and value for money, with the best client feedback available […]”.
The page included a few different sections, titled “Some Client Comments”, “More Client Comments…” and “Excellent Results…”, that included testimonials from clients. The testimonials included claims from clients about the improvements they experienced in the conditions mentioned above. Some testimonials also referred to other conditions including “Long Covid”, migraines, IBS, SAD and pain. Many of the testimonials were the same as those in ad (b). Another testimonial also included “[…] I am doing fantastic with muscle pain, headaches, eyes (bespoke eye treatment) all is great […]”. All of the testimonials included an asterisk at the end.
Under the heading “Hidden Cause: Underlying ‘Malfunctions’”, text similar to that referenced in ad (b) included that a “Dysregulated Nervous System” was the root cause for many health conditions.
Under the heading “We Can Treat up to 3 Conditions at Once…”, a number of health conditions were split into six sub-headings, including “Depression”, “Anxiety & Stress”, “Trauma & PTSD”, “Fibromyalgia”, “Chronic & Viral Fatigue” and “Dementia & Memory”, and provided further information about the condition(s) and that the treatment could help.
Underneath the testimonials, text similar to that referenced in ad (b) stated that there was no need for counselling or medications, they had the best results in the industry, and listed the conditions the treatment could help with.
The asterisks linked to text at the bottom of the page that included similar text as referenced in ad (b).
Issue
The complainant challenged whether the following claims were misleading and could be substantiated:
1. the efficacy claims that the treatment could treat the medical conditions referenced in ads (a), (b) and (c);
2. “we have 13 treatment centres around the UK” in ad (b) and “12 Non-Residential Treatment Centres” in ad (c); and
3. “We have the best treatment results in the industry” and “industry leading results” in ad (b), and similar claims in ad (c).
4. The complainant also challenged whether the ads discouraged essential treatment for conditions for which medical supervision should be sought.
Response
1. – 4. Person(s) unknown t/a Good Health Today and Urhealth-Matters said that getting clinical trial data to support advertising claims cost millions of pounds, and that there was no legal requirement for a complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) practitioner to have such data. They said they invited consumers to try their treatment and to see if it helped. They did not give assurances or guarantees. They said they did not help with any health condition that was prohibited by the law for them to help with, and that consumers were free to choose any treatment they wished. They did not believe that the ASA had the legal authority to regulate their advertising.Assessment
The ASA understood that both the Good Health Today and Urhealth-Matters websites offered the same treatment, and were operated by the same person(s).
1. Upheld
We considered that consumers would understand from the ads that the treatment that Good Health Today and Urhealth-Matters provided could treat depression, anxiety, fibromyalgia, chronic fatigue syndrome, viral fatigue, long COVID, irritable bowel syndrome, stress, trauma, post-traumatic stress disorder, obsessive compulsive disorder, borderline personality disorder, seasonal affective disorder, bipolar disorder, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, migraines, dementia, memory problems and eye problems. We therefore expected to see robust scientific evidence that related specifically to the treatment provided by Good Health Today and Urhealth-Matters, and which substantiated that it was a successful treatment for the listed conditions. Testimonials alone were not sufficient to substantiate the claims.
In the absence of such evidence, we concluded that the claims had not been substantiated and were therefore misleading.
On that point, ads (a), (b) and (c) 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) 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).
2. Upheld
We considered consumers would understand the claim “[…] we have 13 treatment centres around the UK” in ad (b) and “12 Non-Residential Treatment Centres” in ad (c) to mean that Good Health Today and Urhealth-Matters offered their treatment from 13 and 12 treatment centres across the UK, respectively. We therefore expected to see evidence to demonstrate how many treatment centres they had in the UK.
In the absence of evidence showing how many treatment centres they had, we concluded that the claims had not been substantiated and were therefore misleading.
On that point, ads (b) and (c) 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 3.7 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. Upheld
Ads (b) and (c) included the claims “We have the best treatment results in the industry”, “industry leading results” and similarly worded claims. We considered that consumers would understand such claims to mean that the treatment Good Health Today and Urhealth-Matters offered had better results in the treatment of health conditions compared to their competitors. In the absence of qualification, we considered consumers would understand that the comparison was across the healthcare industry including both mainstream treatments and CAM (complementary and alternative) therapies. The claim was therefore an objective, comparative claim that required substantiation with relevant documentary evidence.
In the absence of evidence showing that the treatment offered by Good Health Today and Urhealth-Matters had the best results, across the healthcare industry, in treating health conditions we concluded that the claims had not been substantiated and were therefore misleading.
On that point, ads (b) and (c) 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) 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).
4. Upheld
The CAP Code stated that marketers must not discourage essential treatment for conditions for which medical supervision should be sought. For example, they must not offer specific advice on, diagnosis or treatment for such conditions unless that advice, diagnosis or treatment was conducted under the supervision of a suitably qualified medical professional.
Ads (a), (b) and (c) referenced a range of conditions, as listed above. We considered those were conditions for which medical supervision should be sought, and therefore advice, diagnosis or treatment needed to be conducted under the supervision of a suitably qualified medical professional.
Ads (b) and (c) featured disclaimers at the bottom of the page that said they did not offer diagnosis or assessments. Notwithstanding that, we considered that the claims made about the treatment throughout the web pages implied that Good Health Today and Urhealth-Matters offered specific treatment for those conditions. The disclaimer at the bottom of the page did not negate their responsibilities to demonstrate that the specific treatment was conducted under the supervision of a suitably qualified health professional. We had not seen any evidence to demonstrate that this was the case.
Because Good Health Today and Urhealth-Matters had not supplied evidence that showed their treatment was conducted under the supervision of a suitably qualified medical professional, we concluded that the ads discouraged essential treatment for conditions for which medical supervision should be sought and therefore breached the Code.
In addition, ads (b) and (c) included the claims “Most of our clients had already been to see their GP”, “Most people have tried counseling [sic] and/or medications which haven’t helped”, “we can help without the need for counselling or medication” and similarly worded claims. We considered that such claims encouraged consumers to seek the treatment that Good Health Today and Urhealth-Matters offered for health conditions, in place of medical treatments from qualified health professionals. We considered that the claims discouraged essential treatment for health conditions, and therefore concluded that those claims were in breach of the Code.
On that point, ads (a), (b) and (c) breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rule
12.2
12.2
Marketers must not discourage essential treatment for conditions for which medical supervision should be sought. For example, they must not offer specific advice on, diagnosis of or treatment for such conditions unless that advice, diagnosis or treatment is conducted under the supervision of a suitably qualified health professional. Accurate and responsible general information about such conditions may, however, be offered (see rule
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.
).
Health professionals will be deemed suitably qualified only if they can provide suitable credentials, for example, evidence of: relevant professional expertise or qualifications; systems for regular review of members' skills and competencies and suitable professional indemnity insurance covering all services provided; accreditation by a professional or regulatory body that has systems for dealing with complaints and taking disciplinary action and has registration based on minimum standards for training and qualifications.
(Medicines, medical devices, health-related products and beauty products).
Action
The ads must not appear again in the forms complained of. We told Person(s) unknown t/a Good Health Today and Urhealth-Matters not to claim or imply, including by the use of testimonials, that their treatment could treat health conditions, unless they held robust scientific evidence to demonstrate that was the case. We told them to remove claims that they could treat the following conditions from their ads: depression, anxiety, fibromyalgia, chronic fatigue syndrome, viral fatigue, long COVID, irritable bowel syndrome, stress, trauma, post-traumatic stress disorder, obsessive compulsive disorder, borderline personality disorder, seasonal affective disorder, bipolar disorder, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, migraines, dementia, memory problems and eye problems.
We also told them to not claim that their treatment had industry leading results unless they held robust comparative evidence. We told them to not make claims about how many treatment centres they had unless they held adequate evidence. We further told them not to make claims which discouraged essential treatment for conditions for which medical supervision should be sought unless that advice, diagnosis or treatment was conducted under the supervision of a suitably qualified health professional.
