Ad description
A paid-for X (formerly Twitter) ad for Reticare, a manufacturer of blue-violet light digital screen and eyeglass filters, seen on 30 July 2023, stated “Did you know, for the 1st time in history, Reticare discovered and scientifically proved the fact that screen lights damage your eyes and showed the proper way to solve it? [sic] Based on over 20 years of research. Reticare is the world leader in protection against blue light”.
Issue
The complainant challenged whether the claim that blue light from screens could cause damage to the eyes of humans was misleading and could be substantiated.
Response
Tecnología Sostenible y Responsable SL (TSR) t/a Reticare said their products had been developed in partnership with the Complutense University of Madrid’s Research Group into Vision and Ophthalmology. Their work had demonstrated the negative effects that blue light could have on the human eye. They provided two patents and a clinical study, which they said established the harm caused by blue light and showed their products limited its negative effects, and three studies which they said detailed how the amount of time exposed to light emitting diodes (LED) impacted damage to the retina.
Assessment
Upheld
The ASA considered that consumers would understand the claim "Reticare discovered and scientifically proved the fact that screen lights damage your eyes", in the context of the ad which referred to “protection against blue light”, as meaning the blue light from digital screens could cause irreparable damage to the eyes and/or eyesight and that protection from it was warranted. We considered the advertiser should therefore hold robust scientific evidence in support of the claim. However, when we assessed the evidence provided by Reticare, we considered that it did not meet the standard of evidence required for the type of claim being made.
We assessed the clinical study. It examined the effects of blue light emitted from LED tablet screens on rats and whether a short wavelength filter produced by Reticare effectively modified the light’s impact. In the absence of supporting evidence showing its relevance, we considered the study, which involved animals rather than people, was not adequate substantiation for the claim.
We next assessed the patents. The first referred to a filter with a pigment applied to it that blocked short light wavelengths of between 380 and 500 nanometres (nm). The patent outlined an experiment that had been conducted to establish the effectiveness of the filter at blocking blue light and preventing apoptosis and deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) damage. The in vitro experiment exposed retinal pigment epithelium cell cultures to LED light for 12-hour periods. The experiment’s findings suggested the cell cultures were damaged by the light and that the filter limited that damage.
The second patent was for a diopter with a refractive surface that blocked short and medium wavelengths of light between 380 and 590 nm. It outlined an experiment that was conducted to test the efficacy of two diopters, one that blocked short and medium wavelengths of light between 380 and 590 nm and one that blocked short wavelengths of light between 380 and 500 nm, at preventing mitochondrial damage and apoptosis. The experiment placed the diopters between in vitro retinal pigment epithelium cell cultures and an LED light for 12 hours. The experiment’s findings suggested the diopter had a protective effect over the cell cultures.
The experiments outlined in the patents suggested LED light had an effect on the cell cultures. However, we considered the design of the experiments, which involved uninterrupted exposure to the light source for a significant amount of time, meant they did not likely reflect how consumers would typically engage with an LED screen. Additionally, the experiments’ results had not been independently verified. We therefore considered they were not adequate substantiation for the claim.We reviewed the studies. The first study exposed in vitro cell cultures to a tungsten halogen light source. As the light source in the experiment was different to that of a digital screen, we considered the study was not adequate substantiation for the claim.
The second study examined exposure time as a factor in the effect of blue light on the eye. It did so by exposing in vitro cell cultures to the light and assessing the damage that occurred. Damage occurred after six hours of continuous exposure. We considered that as the study involved uninterrupted exposure to a source of light for a significant amount of time, it was not necessarily representative of how consumers would engage with an LED screen. The third study also used in vitro cell cultures. The results detailed the damage of blue light on the cell cultures, but were derived from random sampling with the aim of establishing a blue light damage model for future experiments. We therefore considered those studies were not adequate substantiation for the claim.
As the body of evidence provided was not adequate substantiation for the claim that blue light from digital screens could cause damage to the eyes of humans, we concluded it was likely to mislead and therefore breached the Code.
The ad breached CAP (Edition 12) rules 3.1 (Misleading advertising), 3.7 (Substantiation), and 12.1 (Medicines, medical devices, health-related products and beauty products).
Action
The ad must not appear again in its current form. We told Tecnología Sostenible y Responsable SL (TSR) t/a Reticare not to make claims that the blue light from screens damage the eyes of humans, and that protection from it was warranted, in the absence of adequate substantiation.
CAP Code (Edition 12)
3.1 3.7 12.1 3.1 8.17 8.17.1 8.17.7 3.1 3.3 3.7
