Health and Beauty

The following information was provided on the homepage of the website:

“Kildare Derma Clinic specialises in anti-wrinkle treatments. We also perform highly effective treatments with Botulinum Toxin for excessive sweating (hyperhidrosis)”.

In the ‘Downloads’ tab featured at the bottom of the website; a link was provided to
“Your guide to Ant-Wrinkle injections.” When this link was clicked a publication entitled “Your guide to treatment with BOTOX® (Botulinum Toxin Type A)” was available to view. This publication contained a vast array of information on Botox, and it’s uses.

The Gallery on the homepage featured before and after images of clients who had received anti-wrinkle injections. 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.

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’, ‘Botulinum Toxin’ and ‘Botulinum Toxin Type A’ were compliant 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 initially failed to provide a response. On receipt of the draft adjudication, they said that the breach had not been intentional and that the material had been legacy content from an inactive website. They said they were taking immediate action to have it corrected.

The Complaints Council expressed concern at the advertisers’ delay in responding 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 (‘Botulinum Toxin’ & ‘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 due to the advertisers’ delay in responding, the Council concluded that the advertisement was in breach of Code Sections 3.10 and 11.16.

Issue 2 – Upheld
The Council considered that the expressions featured in the advertisement were exaggerated. They noted 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 due to the advertisers’ delay in responding, 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.