Background
Summary of Council decision:
Three issues were investigated, all of which were Upheld.
Ad description
Three advertorial style national press ads for facial skin products from the Perfect Cosmetics Company:
a. An ad for My Perfect Eyes, seen in December 2017, was headed “The miracle cream that ’even advert watchdog says WILL banish wrinkles!’” with smaller text next to it stating “Daily Mail 07.09.16”. Further large text stated “My Perfect Eyes is a non-surgical cosmetic miracle which erases puffiness, fine lines, dark circles and wrinkles in 60 seconds, yet lasts for hours! Prepare to be amazed… How to make problem eyes perfect in 60-seconds flat!”. It featured three close up ‘before’ and ‘after’ images of the eye area. In the ‘after’ images lines and puffiness around the treated eye had been significantly reduced.
b. A second ad for My Perfect Eyes, seen in December 2017, also included large text at the top of the ad which stated “The miracle cream that ‘even advert watchdog says WILL banish wrinkles!’” with smaller text next to it stating “Daily Mail 07.09.16”. The ad was headed “How to erase the 6 SIGNS OF AGEING EYES IN 60 Seconds Flat!” and text underneath stated “My Perfect Eyes is a non-surgical cosmetic miracle which erases puffiness, fine lines, wrinkles and more in under a minute, with incredible results that last for hours! Prepare to be amazed …”. The ad featured a ‘before’ and ‘after’ close up of the eye area with text highlighting “CROW’S FEET”, “DARK CIRCLES”, “DEEP-SET WRINKLES”, “BAGS”, “PUFFINESS” AND “FINE LINES” on the ‘before’ image and text under the ‘after’ image stating “Dramatic results in 60 seconds with My Perfect Eyes!”. In the ‘after’ image lines and puffiness around the treated eye had been significantly reduced.
c. An ad for My Perfect Facial, seen in November 2017, was headed “How to erase the 7 SIGNS OF AGEING IN JUST 20 Minutes Flat” and “‘The £30 facelift in a bottle that really DOES work!’ The Sun 29.09.16”. The ad featured a ‘before’ and ‘after’ image of a woman’s face with text highlighting “FURROW LINES”, “CROW’S FEET”, “SAGGING SKIN”, “FINE LINES”, “DEEP-SET WRINKLES”, “FROWN LINES” and “ENLARGED PORES” on the ‘before’ image and text under the ‘after’ image stating “Dramatic results in 20 minutes with My Perfect Facial!”. In the ‘after’ image the woman’s facial skin appeared to be smoother and lines had been lessened. Further text in the body copy included “This non-surgical at-home face-lifting treatment delivers dramatic results instantly - and the results get better after every use!” and “From the makers of My Perfect Eyes - the ‘advert watchdog approved’ cream”.
Issue
The ASA received two complaints:
1. One complainant challenged whether the efficacy claims made for My Perfect Eyes, including the before and after images, in ads (a) and (b) were misleading and could be substantiated.
2. One complainant challenged whether the efficacy claims made for My Perfect Facial, including the before and after images, in ad (c) were misleading and could be substantiated.
3. The ASA also challenged whether ads (a), (b) and (c) were in breach of the Code because they implied that the ASA had endorsed My Perfect Eyes.
Response
1. The Perfect Cosmetics Company Ltd said their claims relating to My Perfect Eyes, a topical cream applied to the eye area, had previously been considered by the ASA in a complaint that was not upheld, and the results achieved by such products were well established in the cosmetic industry. They said My Perfect Eyes worked by forming a tightening film on the skin and while the effects were superficial, they were very quick and visible immediately after the product had dried on the skin. They also said the temporary nature of the product’s effect was cited several times in ads (a) and (b), including statements that the effects lasted for up to 10 hours and all day or night, and that neither ad suggested that My Perfect Eyes had a permanent and lasting effect. The Perfect Cosmetics Company said the efficacy claims were substantiated by a 2015 clinical study evaluating the efficacy of My Perfect Eyes, which had previously been reviewed by the ASA.
The Perfect Cosmetics Company also said the before and after photos of the model’s eyes used in both ads (a) and (b) were from a live demonstration of My Perfect Eyes recorded at a global expo event. They provided footage of the event including an interview with the model, and further full face images before and after treatment. They said the images of the two other models in ad (a) were also genuine before and after photographs, and provided further full face photographs of those women. They also provided recordings of several other live TV demonstrations of the product that showed similar results to the images in the ads.
The Perfect Cosmetics Company also provided screengrabs of the results of Visia scans of two subjects for facial wrinkles, taken before and after treatment of My Perfect Eyes, for the front and left and right sides of the subject’s faces. They said Visia scanners used multispectral imaging to record and compare data on several factors including lines and wrinkles, and were widely recognised as a gold standard for skin analysis. The screengrabs included before and after images, which highlighted wrinkles on the subjects’ faces, which the advertiser said were obtained in a dermatology clinic by a qualified derma therapist. The results stated that the wrinkle count before and after treatment for one subject had decreased from 34 to 26 (front), 19 to 1 (right), and 17 to 5 (left), and for the second subject from 47 to 32 (front), 18 to 3 (right) and 21 to 5 (left). The Perfect Cosmetics Company said those results, in particular the right-side results for both subjects, and the live TV demonstrations, demonstrated that the product almost entirely removed the appearance of wrinkles and lines around the eyes.
2. The Perfect Cosmetics Company provided evidence in support of the efficacy claims in ad (c) for My Perfect Facial. A clinical study by an independent testing company, from 2015, evaluated the efficacy of My Perfect Facial. Female subjects with signs of facial skin ageing applied ten facemasks over a period of four weeks. The primary efficacy measures were Corneometer and Cutometer readings of skin hydration and elasticity, and the secondary measures were digital photographs and the results of a subjective assessment questionnaire regarding the product’s efficacy. All measures were taken at the baseline and on four visits to the assessment centre after the first, third, fifth and tenth treatments.
Based on the results of 23 subjects who completed the trial, the study concluded that My Perfect Facial improved skin hydration after all treatments and elasticity after the third, fifth and tenth treatments (but not the first), and that the digital photos showed wrinkle depth decreased. It also concluded that the subjects’ self-assessment of the product’s efficacy demonstrated it improved skin texture, smoothness, skin hydration, elasticity, made the skin feel firmer and softer, reduced the appearance of pores and effectively lifted the skin. Additionally, it concluded the self-assessment demonstrated that My Perfect Facial produced visible results after one treatment and provided an on-going and cumulative benefit with continued use. The Appendix included the digital photographs taken of all subjects at each visit, and The Perfect Cosmetics Company identified the before and after photos in the ad as one of the subjects and provided further photographs of that subject. They also provided the self-assessment questionnaires from an additional 25 participants (50 in total) to those in the study, and a document summarising the results
The Perfect Cosmetics Company said the study supported the efficacy claims in the ad that the My Perfect Facial improved furrow lines, crow’s feet, sagging skin, fine lines, wrinkles, frown lines and enlarged pores, and the claims “delivers dramatic results instantly” and “the results get better after every use”.
Additionally, The Perfect Cosmetics Company said My Perfect Facial contained 2% Argireline. They provided a technical report for Argireline peptide solution from 2014, commissioned by its manufacturer. The report included extracts from three clinical studies on the effects of Argireline, two of which related to creams containing 10% and 5% of Argireline. The third study concluded that a cream containing 2% of Argireline reduced the appearance of facial wrinkle volume and length by 20.6% and 15.9% respectively after seven days. The Perfect Cosmetics Company provided the three clinical studies of Argireline, commissioned by the manufacturer, and a presentation summarising the results of one study. They also provided an in vitro clinical study of Argireline and an abstract of a further in vitro clinical study of Argireline. They said that evidence also supported the efficacy claims in the ad that the product reduced the appearance of furrow lines, crow’s feet, fine lines, wrinkles, frown lines and the claim “the results get better after every use”.
The Perfect Cosmetics Company also provided screengrabs of Visia scans for two subjects before using My Perfect Facial, and 20 minutes after the treatment, with images and results for analysis of facial wrinkles, pores and texture. The analysis for one subject stated that after treatment the count had decreased from 45 to 26 (for wrinkles), 231 to 130 (for pores) and 309 to 62 (for texture), and for the second subject from 366 to 262 (for pores). They said that those results supported the claims that My Perfect Facial could “erase the seven visible signs of ageing: furrow lines; crow’s feet; fine lines; wrinkles; frown lines; and enlarged pores”, and “IN JUST 20 Minutes Flat!”.
3. Perfect Cosmetics Company said they did not believe the claims in each ad implied the ASA’s endorsement because they only referenced the “advert watchdog” and did not directly mention the ASA or CAP. They said the ad referenced an editorial piece in the Daily Mail on 7 September 2016, and they had not intended to imply an endorsement from the ASA or CAP but simply wished to remind customers about that article. They also said the only query raised by their customers was whether the claim related to the BBC1 TV programme Watchdog.
Assessment
1. Upheld
The efficacy claims relating to My Perfect Eyes in ads (a) and (b) included: “The miracle cream that ‘… WILL banish wrinkles!’”; “erases puffiness, fine lines, dark circles and wrinkles in 60 seconds, yet lasts for hours!”; “INSTANT RESULTS THAT WILL LAST ALL DAY LONG!”; “The results are amazing and last up to an incredible 10 Hours! Wear it all day - or all night”; and “whenever you want to look your best”. The ASA considered that consumers would understand those claims, in conjunction with the before and after images, to mean that the cream had the effect of virtually eradicating the appearance of lines, wrinkles, puffiness and bags from around the eyes within one minute, and that the product’s effects were temporary but would last for several hours.
In support of the claims in the ads, The Perfect Cosmetics Company had referred to a 2015 clinical trial of the product that was previously considered by the ASA, which concluded that My Perfect Eyes reduced the appearance of fine lines, wrinkles, dark circles and puffiness around the eyes for up to 10 hours. In that case the ASA concluded that the trial substantiated the efficacy claims made in a TV ad, on the basis that the temporary nature of the product’s effects was made clear. We acknowledged that ad (a) in particular included multiple statements which implied that the effects of the product were temporary and lasted for a limited time, and ad (b) also included two such statements.
We also considered that the before and after pictures in ads (a) and (b), were in line with similar images of subjects in the trial. We had seen footage of one model who featured in both ads in a recording of a live demonstration of My Perfect Facial.
We nonetheless considered that claims in ads (a) and (b) including “The miracle cream that ‘…WILL banish wrinkles!’”, “erases puffiness, fine lines, dark circles and wrinkles” and “How to erase the 6 SIGNS OF AGEING EYES”, which were prominently positioned and presented in large text, particularly emphasised and gave the overall impression that My Perfect Eyes had the effect of virtually eradicating the appearance of wrinkles, puffiness and circles on a temporary basis. We considered that those claims, as they were likely to be understood by consumers, went beyond the findings of the trial, which concluded that My Perfect Eyes reduced, rather than removed almost entirely, the appearance of wrinkles, puffiness and circles around the eyes.
The live TV demonstrations that had been provided appeared to support the claims that the product had the temporary effect of improving the appearance of the effects of ageing around the eyes. However, we considered that the demonstrations were not adequate substantiation of the efficacy claims in the ad, which went beyond the findings of the clinical trial.
With regard to the Visia scan results provided, we had not seen any information about the methodology or process by which the results were calculated, including the units of data that the ‘counts’ represented. We noted that The Perfect Cosmetics Company considered the results demonstrated that My Perfect Eyes virtually eradicated wrinkles. They had not, however, provided a full explanation, or any statistical analysis, for their interpretation of the results. Notwithstanding that, we considered that the Visia results did not sufficiently demonstrate that the product virtually eradicated wrinkles, in particular the before and after wrinkle counts for the front of the faces of the two subjects, which had reduced by 24% and 32%. The Visia scans that had been provided also did not support the claims relating to the product improving the appearance of dark circles and puffiness.
For those reasons, we concluded that the efficacy claims in ads (a) and (b), including “The miracle cream that ‘… WILL banish wrinkles!’” and “erases puffiness, fine lines, dark circles and wrinkles in 60 seconds, yet lasts for hours!”, had not been adequately substantiated, and exaggerated the effects of My Perfect Eyes. The ads were, therefore, considered misleading.
Ads (a) and (b) 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).
2. Upheld
The efficacy claims relating to My Perfect Facial in ad (c) included “leave you looking years younger … its clinically proven to work!”, “erase the seven visible signs of ageing: furrow lines; crow’s feet; fine lines; wrinkles; frown lines; and enlarged pores”, “facelift in a bottle” and “IN JUST 20 Minutes Flat!”. We considered that consumers would understand the claims, in conjunction with the before and after images, to mean that the product significantly reduced the appearance of facial lines, wrinkles and pores and lifted sagging skin within 20 minutes. We also considered that the claim “dramatic results instantly - and the results get better after every use!” would be understood to mean that the product initially had an immediate, significant effect in reducing the signs of ageing, and it had a cumulative effect each time it was used.
We understood that the close up images in ad (c) were ‘before’ and ‘after’ photographs of a subject from the 2015 clinical trial of My Perfect Facial. We acknowledged that the before and after images in the 2015 trial report appeared to show visible improvements to the skin over the subject’s whole face, in that before the treatment they had more pronounced lines and puffiness around the left eye area than the right eye area. The two images in the ad depicted different sides of the person’s face, with the before picture featuring the left eye, and therefore we considered that the images in the ad exaggerated the effects of the product.
We reviewed the evidence provided in support of the referenced efficacy claims. The independent testing of the product in 2015 commissioned by the advertiser did not feature a control group of subjects or a placebo treatment. We considered that the only objective measures in the test – the subject’s hydration and elasticity levels – did not provide adequate substantiation for the efficacy claims as they would be understood by consumers. The claims were more specific in nature and implied that My Perfect Facial would have an effect that significantly reduced wrinkles and lifted sagging skin within 20 minutes. We acknowledged that there were high levels of agreement for questions relating to the product’s efficacy in the subjective element of the study. However, we considered that the self-assessment results in isolation did not provide the level of substantiation we would expect for the specific nature of the efficacy claims, in particular the statement “clinically proven”, the claims “20 Minutes Flat!” and “dramatic results instantly”, or the implied cumulative effect of the product. We were also concerned that the 2015 study did not include any details of the methodology or results of the secondary measure, the examination of the digital photographs.
We understood that My Perfect Facial contained 2% Argireline, the active ingredient in the product. The Perfect Cosmetics Company had provided a technical report with abstracts of clinical trials of Argireline, and three clinical trials of Argireline which they said corresponded to those results. Two of the clinical trials tested products with 5% and 10% Argireline, and because they contained higher concentrations of that ingredient than My Perfect Facial we considered they were not relevant as evidence to support claims about the effects of My Perfect Facial.
The Perfect Cosmetics Company said the third trial from 2013 set out to assess the efficacy of two products with 2% Argireline. There were two groups of subjects and each group applied one product only to one side of their face for seven days, while the other side of their face was the control with no product applied. The study concluded. The study concluded there was a statistically significant efficacy in diminishing wrinkle length and volume for one product. The trial, which was not published or peer reviewed, did not include any details of the two products, and in particular did not specify that either product tested contained 2% Argireline, or the details of the other ingredients. It provided limited details of the methodology undertaken, including whether the results between right and left eye – the control for each product’s effectiveness – were compared. We were also concerned the study only summarised the statistical analysis of the results, but did not detail those results, or include an explanation of how statistical significance was measured or whether the results were clinically significant. For those reasons we considered that the 2013 trial did not provide adequate evidence for the efficacy claims in the ad.
We considered the two in vitro trials were not relevant because they did not evaluate the efficacy of products containing Argireline in reducing the effects of ageing on human facial skin.
With regard to the Visia scan results provided for My Perfect Facial, as above we had not seen any information about the methodology or process by which the results were calculated, or a full explanation or analysis of how the results for the two subjects demonstrated the efficacy claims in the ad.
Because we considered that the efficacy claims for My Perfect Facial, including “clinically proven”, “erase the seven visible signs of ageing: furrow lines; crow’s feet; fine lines; wrinkles; frown lines; and enlarged pores”, and “IN JUST 20 Minutes Flat!” had not been adequately substantiated, we concluded that the ad misleadingly exaggerated the product’s effects.
Ad (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),
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 considered that consumers would understand the claims that My Perfect Eyes was “The miracle cream that ‘even advert watchdog says WILL banish wrinkles!’ Daily Mail 07.09.16” in ads (a) and (b) to mean that the ASA or CAP had endorsed the product’s capability to eliminate wrinkles from around the eyes. We also considered that the claim “From the makers of My Perfect Eyes - the ‘advert watchdog approved’ cream” in ad (c) would be understood similarly as an endorsement from the ASA or CAP of previous advertising claims made by the advertiser, regarding the efficacy of their other product.
The Code required that marketers must not refer in a marketing communication to advice received from CAP or imply endorsement by the ASA or CAP. Because we considered that the claims explicitly implied an ASA or CAP endorsement of My Perfect Eyes, we concluded that the ads were in breach of the Code.
Ads (a), (b) and (c) breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rule 3.49 3.49 Marketers must not refer in a marketing communication to advice received from CAP or imply endorsement by the ASA or CAP. (Endorsements and testimonial).
Action
The ads must not appear again in their current form. We told The Perfect Cosmetics Company Ltd that efficacy claims relating to My Perfect Eyes and My Perfect Facial must not go beyond those acceptable for a cosmetic product, misleadingly exaggerate the effects of the products on wrinkles and the signs of ageing in facial skin, and must be adequately substantiated. Additionally, future marketing communications must not imply an ASA endorsement.
