Health and Beauty

The following information was provided through the Services tab which linked to Cosmetic Dermatology and the subcategory Botox:

“What is Botox©?
“Botox© is an FDA approved treatment…”
“Botox© temporarily reduces …”
“Botox© reduces …”

The above information was accompanied underneath by a diagram of:
“What Botox© is good for.”

Before and after treatment photographs were also provided. In some cases, the before treatment pictures of the Client’s face was set in a scrunched-up expression. In the after-treatment pictures the Client’s face was set in a natural relaxed expression.

Further information was provided underneath the photographs with the heading:

“Ten Reasons to get your Botox©…”

The advertising content came to the attention of the ASA via its monitoring programme.

Issue 1
The ASA Executive challenged whether the references to ‘Botox’ were complaint with the Code requirement that prescription only medicines may not be advertised to the public.

Issue 2
The ASA Executive challenged whether the facial expressions in the ‘before’ images were exaggerated and therefore had the potential to mislead about the effect of the treatment.

The advertisers were requested to take the necessary action to bring their advertising in line with the acceptable standards set out in the ASA Code rules. Failure to respond gave rise to a formal investigation in the matter.

The advertisers initially failed to provide a response. On receipt of the draft adjudication, they said they were changing their web designer and were having problems finding someone to make the changes. However, they subsequently sourced someone to make the changes and confirmed the amendments had gone live on their website.

The Complaints Council expressed concern at the advertisers’ failure to respond to the ASA’s correspondence. They reminded them that there is an onus on advertisers to ensure that their advertising is in conformity with the Code.

Issue 1 – Upheld
The Council noted the 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 the absence of a response from the advertisers, the Council concluded that the advertisement was in breach of Code Sections 3.10 and 11.16”.

Issue 2 – Upheld
The Council noted the exaggerated expressions featured in the advertisement and the Code requirement that “an advertisement should not mislead by inaccuracy, ambiguity, exaggeration, omission or otherwise”. They considered that the use of exaggerated expressions in ‘before’ treatment images had the potential to mislead consumers. In light of this and in the absence of a response from the advertisers the Council concluded that the advertisement was in breach of Code Sections 3.10 and 4.1.

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.