ASA rules against seven rehabilitation referral companies…
The ASA found seven advertisers to be in breach of the CAP Code for implying they were acting for purposes outside of their business. In each case, the advertiser failed to make the commercial intent (essentially being a referral company) clear and made express or implied claims to provide treatment for addiction themselves. Some advertisers also made misleading references to the Care Quality Commission, implied they'd been approved by a public body or omitted to note that they were paid a commission for their services.
Although some websites provided information regarding the nature of the service offered, it was not provided prominently enough to counteract the impression given by the site overall.
The ads were investigated as part of a wider project into the advertising of rehabilitation clinic referral companies, with a number of investigations being sparked by complaints from the Ethical Marketing Campaign for Addiction Treatment.
(Action Rehab, Addiction Recovery Systems Ltd, Help 4 Addiction Ltd, Rehabs.uk, Serenity Rehabilitation Ltd, UK Addiction Treatment Ltd, Which Rehab Ltd 18 December 2024)
…and three laser eye surgery referral companies
The ASA ruled against a number of ads for not making it immediately clear that the advertisers were principally lead generation companies that connected consumers with laser eye surgery providers, and instead suggested they provided treatment directly.
In addition, claims made regarding a “revolutionary laser eye procedure”, that “almost all patients have achieved 2020 vision”, “it's all over in a matter of minutes”, “More effective than ever before”, and “virtually painless” were found to misleadingly exaggerate the capability of LASIK treatment. Similarly, the claims “advanced vision correction options”, “State-of-the-art technology” were ruled in breach of the CAP Code.
(Better Health and Wellness, Health and Wellness, Marketing VF Ltd t/a The Eco Experts, 18 December 2024)
Another example of an airline going too far with an environmental claim
An Airline making the claim “one of the greenest choices in air travel” was found to be misleading by the ASA because it did not explain that the claim was based on the type of aircraft they used, and the carbon emissions per passenger measured in carbon dioxide per revenue passenger kilometres.
Additionally "greenest" is a comparison against the whole market and the advertisement did not provide information allowing the consumer to verify the comparison against competitors. (Wizz Air Hungary Ltd, 27 November 2024)
To claim an endorsement, there needs to be an endorsement
“Gov Boiler Funding”, the use of “GOV.UK” in isolation in ads, using a previous version of the crown logo used by GOV.UK, and the references to “Backed by the Government”, were all ruled as misleadingly implying the advertiser was associated with the UK government when this was not the case (Lead Pronto Ltd).
Another advertiser used a logo featuring two lions standing either side of a shield with a crown atop, which resembled the UK’s Coat of Arms alongside the name “Energy Grant Access”, the Saltire flag and the references “ECO4 is a Government energy-efficiency scheme in partnership with Ofgem” and “government-backed scheme”. The ASA ruled that the overall impression that Energy Grant Access was associated with, or endorsed by the Scottish Government, which was not the case and therefore misleading (Alchemy Bros Ltd t/a Energy Grant Access).
Alchemy Bros Ltd t/a Energy Grant Access, ECO4U Ltd, Ignite Sustainable Energy Ltd, Impact Energy Ltd, Lead Pronto Ltd, 11 December 2024
Significant terms and conditions need to be stated
A promotion which promised free wine if customers referred a friend was ruled misleading because the initial advertising did not explain that the friend would have to take out a paid subscription in order for the referrer to receive the free wine. The ASA pointed out that given the initial ads were emails there was not limitation in terms of time or space so having a reference to full terms which included this condition was not sufficient. (Beer52 Ltd, 18 December 2024)
Some dos and don'ts for medicinal, medical and health claims
Prescription only medicines cannot be advertised to the public (Valterous Ltd t/a Therapie Clinic, 18 December 2024)
Only licensed medicines can make medicinal claims and medicinal claims include references to pain (Stirling Health Ltd, 20 November 2024)
Food supplements cannot make medicinal claims (Vivostore Ltd t/a Vivo Life, 18 December 2024)
Medical devices need to be registered as such (Oakever Games PTE Ltd t/a Zen World, Person(s) unknown t/a Sereni 18 December 2024)
Ads for foods cannot refer to a rate or amount of weight loss (Ovira Australia t/a Ovira UK, 11 December 2024)
How to mitigate these risks
- Make the nature of the business clear, it's referrals for eye surgery or references to government grants
- Qualify environmental claims
- Classify your product correctly and apply the appropriate advertising regime
- Ensure significant terms and conditions are stated in the ad
- Do call your friendly neighbourhood advertising and consumer products lawyer to get help with the above.
Please contact our authors Katharine Mason or Dominic Watkins if you have any queries or need legal advice.
