Health and Beauty

A link was provided under the “About Dr. {Name Redacted} Biography and Specialisation” section of the website. This link entitled “Neuromodulators for wrinkle relaxing”, led to a further link to “FACE & NECK REFRESH. Neuromodulators for wrinkles → Learn more”. When the arrow to “Learn more” was clicked the following formed part of the information provided:

“Neuromodulators (Botox, Azalure or Bocouture) are the most commonly non-surgical cosmetic procedure performed in Europe and America…”
“What is the next step?
To book Neuromodulators / Botox with Dr. {Name Redacted}, please schedule your treatment or a consultation online. We have locations in …”

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 failed to provide a response.

Complaint upheld.

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 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 in the absence of a response, the Council concluded that the advertisement was in breach of Code Sections 3.10 and 4.1.

Action Required:

The advertisement should not be published in the same format again.

The Council reminded the advertisers that the adjudication applied to all media.