Background
Summary of Council decision:
Three issues were investigated, all of which were Upheld.
Ad description
A circular for a tanning salon, seen on 27 May 2024, featured the text “Benefits of Tanning” at the top of the ad, followed by two bullet points: “Prepares skin for UV exposure prior to holidays” and “Maintains healthy Vitamin D levels”. Further text stated, “Helps to Prevent”, followed by bullet points which listed “SAD, PMS and general depression”, “Skin disorders such as Psoriasis and eczema” and “Osteoporosis”.
Issue
Two complainants challenged whether the:
- ad discouraged essential treatment for which medical supervision should be sought, namely depression, osteoporosis and psoriasis;
- claims that the use of sunbeds maintained healthy Vitamin D levels and prepared the skin for UV exposure, and helped to prevent the conditions SAD, PMS and eczema, were misleading; and
- ad was irresponsible, because it linked claims for health benefits with the use of sunbeds.
Response
1., 2. & 3. PlymGlow Ltd stated that they were unaware the claims might be problematic. They had been using them for years and believed they were accurate. They also provided links to three websites they believed supported some of the claims in their advertising. The first was a UK-based website specialising in selling commercial and home sunbeds, which said that sunbeds could boost Vitamin D levels. The second was for a charity and membership organisation for people affected by psoriasis. It stated that hospital-based light therapies using specific parts of the UV spectrum could reduce inflammation and therefore help psoriasis. However, it warned against general sunbed use, stating that sunbeds were ineffective for treating psoriasis and increased the risks of UV exposure. The third website was for a tanning salon in America, which claimed there were benefits to tanning.
Assessment
1. 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 of or treatment for such conditions unless that advice, diagnosis or treatment was conducted under the supervision of a suitably qualified health professional. The ad referred to “osteoporosis”, “psoriasis” and “depression”, which were conditions for which medical supervision should be sought. Therefore advice, diagnosis or treatment must be conducted under the supervision of a suitably qualified medical professional.
The ASA had not seen evidence to show that PlymGlow’s tanning services were provided under the supervision of a suitably qualified health professional. We considered that in the absence of such a professional the ad discouraged essential medical treatment for conditions for which medical supervision should be sought. The ad therefore breached the Code.
On that point, the ad breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rule 12.2 (Medicines, medical devices, health-related products and beauty products).
2. Upheld
The ad included the claims that tanning “prepares skin for UV exposure prior to holidays” and “maintains healthy Vitamin D levels”. We considered these implied that using sunbeds could provide some health benefits, such as being an efficient way to maintain vitamin D levels and protect against further UV damage. It also claimed that sunbed use could prevent the conditions: seasonal affective disorder (SAD); premenstrual syndrome (PMS); and eczema. For such claims we expected PlymGlow to hold a high level of evidence, consisting of studies and trials which showed these benefits were obtained from sunbeds by humans. However, PlymGlow had supplied no evidence of that kind.
We also took into account that NHS advice on the use of sunbeds was cautious. The advice warned that there was no safe or healthy way to get a tan, and that a tan did not protect skin from the sun’s harmful effects. It stated that the ultraviolet (UV) rays given out by sunbeds increased the risk of developing skin cancer and that many sunbeds gave out greater doses of UV rays than midday tropical sun. It linked to further information provided by the British Association of Dermatologists which stated, "There are no potential health benefits that cannot be more safely and effectively obtained through other means, and any health benefits are debatable, thus such claims should be prevented".
Because we had not seen evidence that sunbeds could provide health benefits including the prevention of medical conditions, and in the context of the caution urged by NHS advice, we concluded that the claims in the ad that sunbeds provided health benefits were misleading and had not been substantiated.
On that point, the ad breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1 (Misleading advertising), 3.7 (Substantiation) and 12.1 (Medicines, Medical devices, health-related products and beauty products).
3. Upheld
As explained above, given the potentially serious consequences for people who used sunbeds because they believed there would be health benefits, we concluded that, as well as not being substantiated, the claims were irresponsible.
On that point the ad breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rule 1.3 (Responsible advertising).
Action
The ad must not appear again in its current form. We told PlymGlow Ltd to ensure they did not discourage essential treatment for conditions for which medical supervision should be sought. We told them to ensure their ads did not misleadingly or irresponsibly claim or imply that health benefits could be obtained from sunbeds, unless they had adequate evidence, or that sunbeds could help to prevent medical conditions.
