Background
Summary of Council decision:
Two issues were investigated, both of which were Upheld.
Ad description
A post on the Facebook page for Tjc Blc Aesthetics, dated 29 May 2023, promoted a training course called “PATHWAY TO AESTHETICS”. Text stated “Fully Accredited […] it doesn’t cost us much to train you & teach you the skills we have, which could potentially change your life just like it did with us, The [sic] average cost for this course is £1000+ […] NOT WITH US - You will get the exact same but with a fraction of the price £299 for the next 3 people to book onto our start from scratch course”.
Underneath the opening text, the ad contained a list of nine subjects the course covered, which included “Foundation Dermal Filler […] Foundation Botox […] Vitamin b12 [sic] injections […] Anatomy & Physiology Level 3/4 […] First Aid / CPR / Anaphylaxis”. Further text stated “Fully Accredited Certificates […] Please please ring my accredited provider & get confirmation that u will be FULLY QUALIFIED […] We are fully accredited with ARAP! […] My AET LEVEL 3 teaching qualification is also with the same provider !!!!”.
Issue
The Joint Council for Cosmetic Practitioners, who believed the training course did not conform to their own standards, challenged whether the:
1. ad was misleading because it offered a training course for aesthetics procedures without making clear the nature, requirements, qualifications and possible professional registration details of the course; and
2. claims that the course was “Fully Accredited” and that potential students would be “FULLY QUALIFIED” were misleading and could be substantiated.
Response
1. In their response to the ASA, TJC & BLC Aesthetics Clinic & Training Academy did not directly comment on Issue 1.
2. TJC & BLC Aesthetics said that they purchased training manuals for the courses they provided from an online aesthetics supplies wholesale supplier, and that they were approved training manuals with the relevant accreditation. They said that prospective students would receive comprehensive training in all relevant areas.
Assessment
1. Upheld
The ASA noted that the ad contained the words “Fully Accredited Course” and “Fully Accredited Certificates”. Further claims stated that the course could “teach you the skills we have, which could potentially change your life”, and included a list of nine subjects which it covered.
We considered that prospective students seeking a qualification which would enable them to perform aesthetics treatments would understand from the ad that completing the ““PATHWAY TO AESTHETICS” training course would give them the knowledge and skills needed to begin administering such treatments professionally. As such, we considered that the ads should have provided them with the information they needed to make an informed decision as to whether or not to enquire further about enrolling on the course.
We noted that on their web page “Choosing who will do your cosmetic procedure”, the NHS advised patients that they could check if professionals offering cosmetic procedures were listed on a voluntary register accredited by the Professional Standards Authority, including the Joint Council of Cosmetic Practitioners, which informed patients that practitioners met set standards of training, insurance and skill.The NHS page advised patients considering undergoing cosmetic treatments - which both required a prescription and those that did not - to ensure that the person giving them the injections was trained and safe to do so, and to make sure they knew what training and experience they had. Further advice recommended that patients avoided practitioners who had only completed a short training course, due to potential complications and risk.
We considered that prospective students might have been unfamiliar with the advice given by the NHS, but that such information was likely to impact on prospective patients’ choice of practitioner. In that context, we considered that ads for training courses that were intended to provide students with qualifications relevant to the administration of aesthetics treatments should have provided information on: the minimum requirements for acceptance onto the course; the qualification that would be attained; the nature and duration of the training; and whether the qualification met the standards necessary for admittance onto a relevant professional register. We considered that information to be material because it gave students an indication of the likelihood of the course giving them the knowledge and skills required to safely carry out the procedures independently.
We noted that the ad did not state what the minimum requirements for acceptance onto the course were, what qualification would be attained upon completion of the course, the nature and duration of the training, and whether the qualification met the standards necessary for admittance onto a relevant professional register.
We acknowledged that the ad stated “Fully Accredited Course”, ““Fully Accredited Certificates”, and “We are fully accredited with ARAP”. We understood ARAP to refer to the Alliance of Registered Aesthetic Practitioners, an independent organisation who reviewed training providers and supported the attainment of Continuous Professional Development (CPD) accreditation. It was not clear from the ad, however, what that accreditation entailed, how ARAP accreditation worked, or how it related specifically to the training of people to carry out aesthetics treatments.
Because the ad omitted the material information listed above, we concluded that it was likely to mislead.
On that point, the ad breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1, 3.3 (Misleading advertising) and 3.7 (Substantiation).
2. Upheld
The CAP Code required that marketing communications must not materially mislead or be likely to do so, and must not mislead the consumer by omitting material information.
The course seen in the ad was titled “PATHWAY TO AESTHETICS”. Text seen in the ad stated “Fully Accredited Certificates” and “u [sic] will be FULLY QUALIFIED”. Further claims included “We are fully accredited with ARAP”. We considered that prospective students seeking a career in aesthetics treatments would understand from the ad that completing the “PATHWAY TO AESTHETICS” course would mean that they were fully qualified to start professionally carrying out such treatments.In their response, TJC & BLC Aesthetics said that students were made aware during the course of the requirements governing the prescription and injections aspect of aesthetics treatments, and were told that the majority of insurance companies required new starters in the industry to have a minimum of six months experience in medical needling. They said that the “PATHWAYS TO AESTHETICS” course had been designed for people who were starting their journey towards becoming qualified to provide aesthetics treatments.
We again noted the claim that TJC & BLC Aesthetics were “fully accredited with ARAP”, who reviewed CPD training providers. We understood that to be accredited with ARAP, they would take actions such as reviewing course materials, checking that materials were written to the correct educational level and were accurate, and that relevant insurance cover was in place.
While we acknowledged that CPD training was a widely recognised form of ongoing professional development and training, we understood that there was a distinct difference between a CPD certificate and a recognised qualification. We understood that CPD training sat outside of the qualifications framework and could not offer recognised qualifications, such as a National Vocational Qualification.
Prospective students would have understood from the ad that they would be “FULLY QUALIFIED” after completing the course, but in fact the course was designed as an introduction to the topic, and further training and experience would be expected to be completed in order to work independently. Also, because the ad made reference to achieving a qualification, when in fact students would receive a CPD certificate, and not a recognised qualification, we concluded that the ad was likely to mislead.
On that point, the ad breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1, 3.3 (Misleading advertising) and 3.7 (Substantiation).
Action
The ads must not appear again in the form complained of. We told TJC & BLC Aesthetics Clinic & Training Academy to ensure their future advertising did not omit material information, such as the requirements for acceptance onto the course, the nature and duration of the training, the qualification that would be attained and whether the qualification met the standards necessary for admittance onto a relevant professional register. We also told them to ensure that they did not imply that courses they offered provided consumers with recognised qualifications, if that was not the case.
