Background
This Ruling forms part of a wider piece of work on rehab clinic referral companies. The ad was identified for investigation following complaints received from the Ethical Marketing Campaign for Addiction Treatment (EMCAT).
Summary of Council decision:
Three issues were investigated, all of which were Upheld.
Ad description
The website homepage www.whichrehab.co.uk, for Which Rehab, seen in July 2024, stated: “Drug and Alcohol Rehab London & UK I Free, Impartial, Expert Addiction Rehab & Treatment Advice”; “WHICHREHAB? HELPING YOU ACCESS THE RIGHT ADDICTION TREATMENT”; “Call Our Free 24-Hour Addiction Treatment Helpline”, “Our addiction treatments are designed to treat you as a whole person”, “Our rehab success stories”; “Our addiction treatment service covers the whole of the UK”; “Drug & Alcohol Rehab & Detox Treatment Wherever You Are. Our networks of rehabs and contacts in our rehab directory means [sic] we have the appropriate addiction rehab clinic near you, for you”; and “Which Rehab not only provide free advice…but also a number of proven addiction treatment services…We also effectively treat all manner of drug addictions, behavioural problems and mental health issues that are commonly linked to addiction.”
The page showed the logos of seven major insurers and stated, “We accept most UK insurers for drug & alcohol rehab treatment”. The page further showed the “Regulated by the Care Quality Commission” logo and stated, “Which Rehab only work with and recommend rehabs that have been approved by the Care Quality Commission (CQC)”.
Issue
The complainant, Ethical Marketing Campaign for Addiction Treatment (EMCAT) challenged whether the:
- ad falsely implied that the marketer was acting for purposes outside its business and did not make clear their commercial intent;
- names and logos of the insurers misleadingly implied an affiliation with those companies; and
- use of the Care Quality Commission logo misleadingly implied the advertiser was registered with them.
Response
1. Which Rehab Ltd said their website had never stated that they operated any clinics, and any misunderstanding in that respect would have been clarified when a consumer called their helpline. However, they acknowledged the wording on the website could have been more precise.
They said that they did provide free and impartial advice to those who contacted them. Callers were then signposted to treatment providers who were best suited to their individual needs. This would take into account the consumer’s location, affordability, preference of length of stay at a rehabilitation facility, as well as other factors. Dependent on circumstances and preferences the consumer could be referred to a suitable private, not-for-profit or charity run service.
They explained if the consumer was referred to a private service and they completed the pre-admission assessment and paid for treatment, Which Rehab would receive a referral fee. If an individual was signposted to a not-for-profit or charity run service no referral fee would be received.
They explained that they had decided to review the website to ensure consistency and made changes to avoid any misunderstandings.
2. Which Rehab said that many consumers were concerned about the future potential costs of treatment. Therefore, they wanted to reassure those visiting their website that the treatment centres to which they referred accepted most UK insurers, and as such, they listed those companies on the page. They acknowledged however that the claim “We accept most UK insurers for drug & alcohol rehab treatment” could imply that they worked directly with the insurers. They said it would have been clear to consumers who called them that all insurance agreements were with the treatment centres themselves. However, they had amended the claim to make that clearer.
3. Which Rehab stated that they contacted the CQC in 2021 to request permission to use their logo. They were told by the CQC that they could display it as long as they made clear why it was on the website and that they were explicit that they only recommended CQC registered services.
On that basis, the logo was shown on the website with text that stated, “Therefore, Which Rehab only work with and recommend rehabs that have been approved by the Care Quality Commission (CQC)… Our rehabs are all regulated by CQC… To find out more about how our CQC approved rehabs can help you…”.
They confirmed that Which Rehab was not regulated by the CQC and believed that they had not presented themselves as such. However, they had made amendments to the text since the complaint and amended “Our rehabs” in the text that accompanied the CQC logo to say, “Our recommended rehabs” and removed the word “our” before “CQC approved rehabs”.
Assessment
1. Upheld
The ASA noted that the home page had stated, “Which Rehab not only provide free advice…but also a number of proven addiction treatment services…We also effectively treat all manner of drug addictions, behavioural problems and mental health issues that are commonly linked to addiction”. Further it had said, “Our Addiction Treatment Services”, “Our rehab success stories” and “Our addiction treatment service covers the whole of the UK”. We considered those claims were likely to be understood by consumers to mean that Which Rehab provided treatment directly at centres they owned or operated. In addition, the page also had said “Free, Impartial, Expert Addiction Rehab & Treatment Advice” and “Which Rehab?” and therefore implied that they offered impartial advice with no commercial incentive. However, we understood that Which Rehab was a referral centre that connected consumers seeking help for addiction with registered treatment providers and they received commission for doing so.
We acknowledged that Which Rehab had made changes to their home page and wider website. The updated home page made clearer that they did not provide treatment directly and made referrals to third parties. However, the changes made were quite low down the page and therefore the home page still did not prominently or explicitly make clear what their business model was and how they were funded.
The ad did not make immediately clear that they were principally a referral company that received commission for placements with partner rehabilitation facilities, and instead implied they provided treatment directly at clinics that they owned or operated, as well as offering unbiased advice to those seeking help with addiction. We therefore concluded that the ad implied that Which Rehab were acting for purposes outside their business, and did not make clear their commercial intent. The ad therefore breached the Code.
On that point the ad breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rule 2.3 (Recognition of Marketing Communications).
2. Upheld
The home page had displayed the logos of seven major insurers and stated, “We accept most UK insurers for drug & alcohol rehab treatment”.
We considered that consumers were likely to interpret the claim, particularly because of the use of “We”, to mean that Which Rehab directly accepted payment via claims made with the specific insurers listed on the website. However, as a referrer, not a treatment centre, Which Rehab did not engage with the insurers directly.
We acknowledged that Which Rehab had made changes to the home page and it now stated, “The treatment providers that we refer to accept most UK insurers for drug & alcohol rehab treatment” just above the logos of the insurers. It therefore made clearer that the insurers would be accepted by the addiction centres themselves, rather than via Which Rehab. However, because the home page previously implied a direct arrangement that did not exist with those insurers, we concluded the ad at the time of the complaint was misleading.
On that point the ad breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rule 3.1 (Misleading Advertising).
3. Upheld
The CAP Code stated that marketing communications must not claim that the marketer has been approved, endorsed or authorised by any public or other body if it has not or without complying with the terms of the approval, endorsement or authorisation. In addition, marketing communications must not falsely claim that the marketer, or other entity referred to in the marketing communication, is a signatory to a code of conduct.
The home page had displayed the CQC name and logo with the text “Regulated by”. We considered that consumers were likely to interpret the claim “Regulated by Care Quality Commission” with the CQC logo as meaning Which Rehab itself was regulated by the CQC.
We acknowledged that changes had been made to the home page regarding the use and positioning of the logo to make clearer, as the CQC had requested, that it was the rehab services that were CQC registered that Which Rehab recommended,.However, because the home page previously implied that Which Rehab were regulated by the CQC, rather than the services they recommended, we concluded the ad had breached the Code.
On that point, the ad breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.50 and 3.51 (Endorsements and testimonials).
Action
The ad must not appear again in the form complained of. We told Which Rehab Ltd to ensure that their advertising did not falsely imply they were acting for purposes outside their business, not to imply that they provided treatment directly at clinics that they owned or operated if they did not and to make clear that they were a referral company that received commission for their service. They must not imply a direct relationship with insurers if that was not the case and must not claim that they had been approved or authorised by any public or other body if that was not the case.
