Advertisment
An Instagram story featured an Influencer wearing the Current Body LED face mask. She delivered the following information to her followers:
“This is the Current Body LED mask, which is proven to reduce wrinkles by 35%…”
Complaint
The complainant challenged the claim that the mask was proven to reduce wrinkles by 35%. They said that neither the Influencer nor the brand had included substantiation for the claim and without this they considered the advertising to be misleading.
Response
The advertisers said that an Independent Consumer Study on 94 respondents in August 2023 provided the following results for their product:
“100% of customers love the CurrentBody Skin LED Light Therapy Mask
97% said skin looked brighter or fresher
96% would recommend to their family and friends
90% agreed skin looked more radiant & glowing
87 % agreed skin tone looked visibly improved
87 % agreed skin looked or felt more hydrated/plumped”
In a further evaluation of different types of wrinkle reduction in females aged from 35-59 years, the advertisers drew particular attention to the fact that 28 days after application of the product 20 users (80%) showed a significant improvement in the volume of wrinkles in one area of the face.
The advertisers also referred to studies on the benefits of LED phototherapy for skin rejuvenation.
In conclusion the advertisers said they would update the claim used to specify that the product was proven to reduce wrinkles by “up to 35%” instead of “35%”
1. Sadick N; ‘A study to determine the efficacy of a novel handheld light-emitting diode device in the treatment of photoaged skin.’ J Cosmet Dermat 2008 Dec;7(4):263-7
2. Lee SY et al; ‘A prospective, randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blinded, and split-face clinical study on LED phototherapy for skin rejuvenation: Clinical, profilometric, histologic, ultrastructural, and biochemical evaluations and comparison of three different treatment settings.’ Journal of Photochemistry and Photobiology B: Biology 88; (2007): 51–67 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17566756/ –
3. Russell B et al; ‘A study to determine the efficacy of combination LED light therapy (830 nm and 633 nm) in facial skin rejuvenation’. – Journal of Cosmetic and Laser Therapy volume 7 issue 3/4
Conclusion
Complaint Upheld.
The Complaints Council considered the detail of the complaint, and the response received.
The Council noted the specific independent consumer study and evaluation report provided for the claim made in the advertising. While noting that 20 out of 25 (80%) participants in the evaluation study showed a significant improvement in the volume of wrinkles around a specific area, only 2 users (8%) showed an improvement in the number of wrinkles for the same area over the 28-day usage period.
The Council noted the overall statistics provided for the different types of wrinkles. They considered the sample numbers used to be small with varying results to support the claim made in the advertising. Given the variance in the results and the fact that there appeared to be no longitudinal study available for the claim made, the Council did not consider that the claim had been sufficiently substantiated and was therefore in breach of Sections 4.1, 4.4, 4.9, 4.10 and 11.1 of the Code.
Action Required
Unless substantiation for 35% was provided, claims referencing it should not be used.
