Advertisment
The advertisement appeared on a community Notice Board Facebook page. The advertisement was for a lymphatic massage device called Body Ballancer®. The advertisement included the following statements:
“Try the amazing Body Ballancer Kinsale….” And “book your appointment for a lighter more energised YOU!”.
The advertisement also included a testimonial from a named magazine: ‘Legs feel immediately lighter – and a course of three treatments a week, for one month, promises long-term benefits: shapelier legs, much improved circulation and even a reduction in cellulite.’
Complaint
The complainant stated that the treatment involved the wearing of a compression suit. They objected to the advertising on the grounds that they considered there was no formal research into the effects of the treatment.
They considered it was misleading as no baseline results were recorded on which to establish definitive “improvement” in a broad range of symptoms that they considered were vague and non-defined symptoms and generally associated with menopause. They considered that the advertisement played on the fears and insecurities of menopausal women, promising elements like reduced cellulite and more slender limbs.
In summary, the complainant believed the advertisement was promoting a beauty product with unsubstantiated medical claims.
Response
The advertisers stated that, they had been informed that whilst there were no clinical studies to show that this aesthetic device could lead to shapelier legs, improved circulation and appearance in reduction in cellulite, all the evidence that had backed these claims were from the usage of customers and their feedback.
The advertisers also said that they wanted to explain that the manufacturers who made the device only made compression devices and that their primary product was LymphaPress where there were 30+ clinical studies and this device was used in hospitals worldwide. They said that the manufacturer then made the Ballancer for aesthetic use worldwide which did not have the clinical studies but was based on their compression LymphaPress. The advertisers stated that the Body Ballancer and the LymphaPress were very similar.
Conclusion
Complaint Upheld
The Complaints Council considered the detail of the complaint and the advertisers’ response.
The Council noted the requirements of the Code that a marketing communication should not contain claims – whether direct or indirect, expressed or implied – which a consumer would be likely to regard as being objectively true unless the objective truth of the claims can be substantiated (S. 4.9) and that before offering a marketing communication for publication, advertisers should satisfy themselves that they will be able to provide documentary evidence to substantiate all claims that consumers are likely to regard as objective (S. 4.10). In this case, the Council noted that evidence for the claims was based on the quoted testimonials in the advertising and that no other evidence was provided.
The Council noted that testimonials on their own from customers did not qualify as substantiation under the Code and in the absence of evidence for the claims made, the Council considered that the claims in the advertising could mislead consumers and was, therefore, in breach of Sections 4.1, 4.4, 4.9, 4.10 and11.1 of the Code.
Action Required
The advertisement should not appear again in its current form unless supporting evidence is provided.
