Advertisment
The influencer posted a question to their Instagram stories together with their answer to a query they received from a follower who said they were waiting on jaw surgery.
The follower asked the Influencer how beneficial they had found oxygen treatment and if they had any surgery prep ideas. The Influencer responded as follows:
“Absolutely! Oxygen treatment would be so beneficial; for any type of surgery, it’s only going to benefit your recovery. Try your best to start your oxygen treatment a few weeks in advance of your surgery for the benefits. Regarding surgery preparation, I gave up alcohol for 6 weeks, drank water daily and tried my best to eat well and done (sic) oxygen treatments weekly prior to surgery. Contact @ambersurgery @amberoxygen and tell them (name redacted) sent you”.
Complaint
The complainant, a medical doctor, said that oxygen was a drug which needed to be prescribed and considered that advising a person before jaw surgery to use oxygen, without knowing their medical history was ill advised. They noted the Influencer in question was a brand ambassador for the clinic.
Response
The advertisers said the complainant was correct in recognising that oxygen was a pharmacological agent. They said they could not speak on behalf of the Influencer but outlined that their facility operated with a mild hyperbaric chamber designed to function below 2.0 ATA, which was fully compliant with globally recognized standards including the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME), the Pressure Equipment Directive (PED), CE and the relevant International Organisation for Standardisation (ISO) certifications.
The advertisers said that it was important to note that Hyperbaric Oxygen Therapy (HBOT) treatment did not have to be prescribed in Ireland and the Complainant was incorrect in this assertion.
In conclusion, the advertisers said they were very conscious of the quality of the HBOT service they provided, and they engaged in procedures to ensure that the risk to any client considering HBOT treatment was minimised, giving due consideration to the purpose of the treatment, the health condition and medical history of the client and where, if considered necessary, requiring consultation with and clearance from their doctor
The influencer said they had been promoting non-medical oxygen therapy which they did not explain at the time, a genuine mistake which they apologised for. If promoting the service again they said they would explain in more depth what was involved, and they would also be more mindful of what they promoted to their followers. They once again apologised for any confusion caused by their post.
Conclusion
Complaint upheld.
The Complaints Committee considered the detail of the complaint and both the advertisers’ and the influencer’s response.
The Complaints Committee noted that the type of oxygen advertised was non-prescriptive but that this fact had not been clarified in the post concerned.
The Committee noted the concerns in the complaint that advising a person before jaw surgery to use oxygen, without knowing their medical history, was ill advised. The Committee were concerned that a medical treatment was being recommended to an individual whose medical history was not known and in addition, they were not advised to discuss the treatment with their healthcare provider. In the circumstances they considered the advertising in breach of Section 3.3 of the Code.
Action Required:
The advertising should not appear in the same format again.
The Complaints Committee reminded all advertisers that when using influencers as brand ambassadors to advertise their products, the onus is on them to ensure that their advertising is in conformity with the Code.
