Background
This case forms part of a wider piece of work on ads for cosmetic surgery abroad, identified for investigation following intelligence gathered by our Active Ad Monitoring system, which uses AI to proactively search for online ads that might break the rules.
Ad description
A paid-for Facebook ad for Fi Clinica Europe, promoting cosmetic surgery in Lithuania, seen in May 2023, stated “Get all the answers about your surgery and book a time for the consultation via email [email protected]”.
Underneath, large text stated “MOMMY MAKEOVER from €6600”. Below this was a photo of a man in a white coat, and text which stated “Vygintas Kaikaris MD, PhD, Plastic and Reconstructive Surgeon”. Further text stated “25 Years of Experience Short Flight Guaranteed Safety GET IN TOUCH WITH US VIA [email protected]”.
Text underneath stated “A safe choice for your plastic surgery. Get in touch with us via email [email protected] ”, with a button labelled, “ Learn more”.
Issue
The ASA challenged whether the:
1. claim “MOMMY MAKEOVER” was irresponsible because it exploited mothers’ insecurities around body image;
2. claim “Guaranteed Safety” was irresponsible and misleading because all cosmetic interventions carried some level of risk to the patient; and
3. ad misleadingly omitted information regarding the need for a pre-consultation to assess the patient’s potential contraindications and suitability for the procedures, including where such a pre-consultation would take place.
Response
1. UAB Forma perfecta t/a Fi Clinica said that the term “MOMMY MAKEOVER” was widely used by plastic surgeons and professional associations all over the world. They said that the surgery consisted of a series of procedures performed in the same surgical session (including breast augmentation, breast lift, tummy tuck). The goal of the surgery was to restore the shape and appearance of a woman’s body after childbirth and therefore plastic surgeons developed the term “Mommy makeover”, which was well known among patients. By using this term, they were informing potential patients about this known plastic surgery package.
2. They said they used the claim “Guaranteed Safety” to confirm that their clinic operated in accordance with legal and professional standards and had all the necessary licences and insurances.
3. They said the ad included text that stated “Get all the answers about your surgery and book a time for a consultation via email [email protected]”. They believed that this clearly indicated that there would be a pre-surgery consultation where the patient’s suitability for the procedures, potential contraindications, risks and complications would be discussed. It was impossible to include all information about the surgery in one ad so they included a link to “Learn more” which directed consumers to their website where the surgery, requirements, risks and other necessary information was set out.
Assessment
1. Upheld
The CAP code required that marketing communications must not include gender stereotypes that were likely to cause harm, or serious or widespread offence.
The ASA considered that women may already be body conscious because of pre-existing societal pressures and that any concerns and anxieties about their weight and shape were likely to have been heightened after giving birth.
We acknowledged that the term “mommy makeover” was used by others within the cosmetic surgery sector. However, we nonetheless considered that the term “MOMMY MAKEOVER” in the context of an ad for a package of cosmetic procedures, exploited the insecurities of mothers about their body image and perpetuated pressure for them to conform to body image stereotypes.
We concluded that the ad presented a gender stereotype regarding body image in a way that was likely to cause harm and therefore breached the Code.
On that point the ad breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rule 4.9 (Harm and offence).
2. Upheld
CAP guidance stated that marketers should avoid irresponsibly describing cosmetic interventions as “safe” or “easy”, because it was likely that all such interventions would carry some level of risk to the patient.The ad promoted a “MOMMY MAKEOVER”. We understood that the mommy makeover usually consisted of a package of cosmetic interventions, each with different levels of risk. The ad showed the photo of the surgeon alongside wording which included “Guaranteed Safety” and “A safe choice for your plastic surgery”. In the context of an ad for cosmetic surgery, we considered consumers would understand “Guaranteed Safety” to mean that the surgery was without risk and the additional claim “A safe choice for your plastic surgery” underlined this. Because all cosmetic surgery carried some level of risk to the patient, we concluded that the claim “Guaranteed Safety” was misleading and irresponsible.
On that point, the ad breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rule 1.3 (Social Responsibility) and 3.1 (Misleading advertising).
3. Upheld
The CAP Guidance on Cosmetic interventions stated that marketers should not imply that invasive surgery was a “minor procedure” or similar if that claim was likely to mislead as to the complexity or duration of the operation, the possible pain experienced either during or after the operation, the length of the recovery time or the potential side-effects. Ads should not mislead as to the likely commitment required for pre-consultation, surgery, recovery and post-operative assessments.
We understood that a pre-consultation would be necessary in order to discuss the patient’s concerns and suitability for the procedures, outline the complexity or duration of the operations, the possible pain during or after the operation, the length of recovery time and the potential risks and side effects. We understood it was likely that those pre-consultations might sometimes need to take place in person rather than remotely. In this case, three significant medical interventions were likely to be included in the package, each with their own risks and recovery times. We considered that in the context of an ad for cosmetic surgery abroad, information regarding the necessity for pre-consultations and where those would take place was material information necessary for consumers to make a considered decision and should have been included in the ad.
We acknowledged that the ad stated upfront that the consumer could “Get all the answers about your surgery” and needed to “book a time for the consultation via email [email protected]”. We considered this communicated to consumers that a consultation was necessary as part of the purchasing process, although it was not clear from the ad or the information provided by the advertiser whether the consultation referred to in the ad was a medical consultation with the surgeon where concerns and suitability would be discussed in full. The ad did not contain any information regarding where a pre-consultation would take place. The click button at the bottom of the ad to “Learn more” took the consumer to the Fi Clinica website. However, we did not receive further information from the advertiser regarding the details included on that web page and whether it clearly communicated to consumers the need for a pre-consultation and where that would take place. We considered that this was information which should have been included in the ad itself and that there was sufficient space to do so.
We considered that in the context of an ad for cosmetic surgery abroad, information regarding the necessity for pre-consultations and where those would take place was material information necessary in order for consumers to make a considered decision and should have been included in the ad. Because that material information was not adequately included we considered that the ad was misleading.
On this point the ad breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1 and 3.3 (Misleading advertising).
Action
The ad must not appear again in the form complained about. We told UAB Forma perfecta t/a Fi Clinica not to present gender stereotypes regarding body image in a way that was likely to cause harm, including by using the term “mommy makeover” to describe surgical procedures. We told them to ensure that their ads were socially responsible and did not mislead consumers into thinking that their surgery was without risks, including by using the term “Guaranteed Safety”. We told Fi Clinica not to mislead consumers by omitting material information regarding cosmetic surgery procedures abroad, including where and when the pre-consultation would take place.
