Advertisment
In the about us section of the website the following information was provided:
“Our clinic in Dublin is dedicated to providing high-quality Botox …”
“Dr. {Name Redacted} is a renowned dentist with over 12 years of experience in the field of dentistry. She has a deep understanding of facial anatomy and a keen eye for aesthetics, making her exceptionally skilled in administering Botox …”
Under the pricing tab which was accompanied by a facial diagram pointing out the possible treatment areas and the cost involved, the following information was provided:
“Affordable Anti-Wrinkle injections and {other treatment redacted}
At Ziya Skin Clinic, we offer competitive pricing for our high-quality Botox …”
Complaint
The advertising content came to the attention of the ASA via its monitoring programme.
The ASA Executive challenged whether the references to ‘Botox’ and ‘Botulinum toxin’ were compliant with the Code requirement that prescription only medicines may not be advertised to the public.
Response
The advertisers initially failed to provide a response. On receipt of the draft adjudication, they said they had amended their advertising.
Conclusion
Complaint upheld.
The Complaints Council expressed concern at the advertisers’ delay responding to the ASA’s correspondence. They noted that the advertising had been amended at the time of adjudication.
The Council noted the initial advertisement had promoted a treatment using a prescription only medicine (‘Botox’), and that the Code required that “Prescription-only medicines may not be advertised to the public”.
In view of the fact that a prescription only medicine was advertised and in light of the delay in responding by the advertisers, the Council concluded that the advertisement was in breach of Code Sections 3.10 and 11.16.
Action Required:
As the advertising had been amended, no further action was required.
The Council reminded the advertisers that the adjudication applied to all media.
