| Posted 07 September 2022 Homemark makes the following claims for this product: - “blasts away unwanted fat, smooth and softens the appearance of orange peel skin, and improves circulation”;
- The name “Fat Blaster”;
- “improved circulation and daily massage is proven to assist with the reduction of cellulite and orange peel skin”.
A complainant argued that these claims are false and highly unlikely. He is unable to find any evidence that this device, or a similar device, is able to satisfy the claims being made. Therefore, without evidence, the claims are unproven and will dupe the ordinary consumer into purchasing a likely useless product. Decision of the ADVERTISING REGULATORY BOARDComplainant: Dr Harris Steinman
Advertiser: Homemark (Pty) Ltd
Consumer/Competitor: Consumer
File reference: 2117 – Homemark Igia Fat Blaster – Dr Harris Steinman
Outcome: Upheld Date: 2 September 2022 The Directorate of the Advertising Regulatory Board has been called upon to consider a … Read the rest Posted 10 May 2022 This product claims in a Carte Blanche advert that it would allow users to “Lose the weight you’ve always wanted to lose, in only seven short days, without ever stepping foot in a gym …” It adds that this “… Jump Start seven-day programme is super-fast weight loss to flush out stored toxins, and once you remove these toxins the fat is released from your body in a quick, yet safe manner”. It also features the following “Before” and “After” photos of people purported to have lost weight using this programme. The Complainant submitted that there is insufficient evidence to support reliance on juice- based diets, that research from trusted sources have linked liquid diets to an increased risk of eating disorders and health complications, and that people should only undertake liquid based diets under close medical supervision. The Complainant added that there was no evidence … Read the rest Posted 28 March 2022 A consumer laid a complaint with the Advertising Regulatory Board against the claims being made for Wondernut arguing that there is no robust evidence to support the claims being made for this product. The product claims, inter alia: - May Lose centimetres
- May Improve Muscle tone, May Increase weight loss and detoxifies your system.
- May Maintains Energy levels
- May Enhances skin – Making it soft and shiny May increase your skin elasticity
- Transform food into energy instead of fat
After a thorough consideration, the ARB agreed and ruled against the claims being made for this product. Decision of the ADVERTISING REGULATORY BOARDComplainant: Dr Harris Steinman
Advertiser: Wondernut (Pty) Ltd
Consumer/Competitor: Consumer
File reference: 1936 – Wondernut – Steinman
Outcome: Upheld Date: 28 March 2022 The Directorate of the Advertising Regulatory Board has been called upon to consider claims made by the Advertiser for its “Wondernut Capsule” … Read the rest Posted 28 March 2022 The Directorate of the Advertising Regulatory Board was called upon to consider a complaint against claims made on the Advertiser’s website https://www.optiway.co.za/ and heard during a radio commercial. The Complainant submitted that there is insufficient evidence to show that this test, which is “… essentially an IgG type test ” can deliver on its claimed efficacy, that is, can detect foods which result in “food intolerance”. The ARB concluded that in light of the adverse finding, the Advertiser is requested to withdraw this claim with immediate effect and within the deadlines stipulated in Clause 15.3 of the Procedural Guide. Decision of the ADVERTISING REGULATORY BOARDComplainant: Dr Harris Steinman
Advertiser: OptiWay
Consumer/Competitor: Consumer
File reference: 1926 – OptiWay Foods – Steinman
Outcome: Upheld Date: 28 March 2022 The Directorate of the Advertising Regulatory Board has been called upon to consider a complaint against claims made on … Read the rest Posted 12 July 2021 Three complainants challenged whether the claim “YorkTest define Food Intolerance as a food-specific IgG reaction”, and the overall impression of both ads that the test would inform consumers if they had a food intolerance, was misleading and could be substantiated. Another complainant challenged whether the efficacy claims about migraines in both ads and depression in ad (b) were misleading and could be substantiated. The UK ASA concluded the evidence was insufficient to support the claims. Similar companies in South Africa make the same unfair claims, .e.g., ImuPro. ASA Ruling on YorkTest Laboratories LtdBackgroundSummary of Council decision: Two issues were investigated, both of which were upheld. Ad descriptionA TV ad and website for YorkTest: a. The TV ad, seen on 29 January 2018, featured a woman described in on-screen text as a “Nutritionist YorkTest Laboratories” standing in a kitchen in … Read the rest Posted 12 July 2021 An UK TV ad for Slendertone, a toning belt, seen in January and February 2019. A voice-over stated, “Meet Slendertone, your personal body toner, who firms and tones your abs, helps shape your waistline and easily fits in with your lifestyle. Clinically proven with results from four weeks. Look and feel amazing.” This product is similar to the advert shown on DSTV for Neotex Hot Belt. The UK ASA concluded: “We concluded that the impression given by the ad, that the product was able to affect the size of the waist by visibly firming and toning the abdominal muscles, had not been substantiated and that the ad was therefore misleading.” ASA Ruling on Bio-Medical Research Ltd t/a SlendertoneBackgroundSummary of Council decision: Two issues were investigated, one of which was Upheld. The other was informally resolved after the advertiser agreed to … Read the rest Posted 12 July 2021 Similar to the South African company, DNA Analysis, who claims that they are able to create a diet based on your DNA, this UK company made similar claims. The UK ASA found insufficient evidence to support their claims. ASA Ruling on DNAfit Life Sciences Ltd t/a DNAfitA paid-for ad on Instagram for DNAfit, seen on 29 September 2019, featured an animated double helix and captions that stated “We’re DNA. We know all about your body. Fast twitch muscle fibres give you power. Slow give you endurance. And that’s not all we can tell you. Order your kit now at DNAfit.com”. A caption under the animation stated “Unlock the secret to your ideal diet, vitamin need and exercise response”. IssueThe complainant, who believed DNA testing could not be used to determine an individual’s diet, vitamin and exercise needs, challenged … Read the rest Posted 24 June 2021 A consumer complaint was laid with the Advertising Regulatory Bureau against the advertising of Nivea “Perfect & Radiant Luminous630 Anti Dark Marks Serum”. The complainant submitted that he contacted Nivea and asked for evidence of these “extraordinary” claims. Nivea was unwilling to provide any evidence, citing reasons of confidentiality, but assured him that “… the study was conducted in compliance with the necessary international and local standards applicable”. The complainant therefore turned to the ARB arguing that without evidence, the claims cannot be justified. Nivea supplied evidence. [divider] Decision of the Advertising Regulatory BoardComplainant: Dr Harris Steinman
Advertiser: Beiersdorf Consumer Products (Pty) Ltd
Consumer/Competitor :Consumer
File reference: 1472 – Nivea Luminous 630 – Dr Harris Steinman
Outcome: Dismissed Date: 24 June 2021 The Directorate of the Advertising Regulatory Board has been called upon to consider a consumer complaint against advertising promoting the Advertiser’s … Read the rest Posted 14 May 2021 In November 2020, the Advertising Regulatory Board ruled against the claims being made by Herbex UltraSlim preventing further advertising of this product on DSTV and elsewhere. The complainant argued that there is zero evidence to show that this product has any effect on weight-loss, or any of the other claims being made for the product. Herbex has now appealed this ruling, supplying a ‘dossier’ compiled by Dr Craig Wright, a homeopath and herbal practitioner. The original complainant argued that the dossier still did not substantiate the claims for the product. The ABR agreed. Herewith the ruling: Decision of the Advertising Regulatory BoardComplainant: Dr Harris Steinman
Advertiser: Newgroup (Pty) Ltd
Consumer/Competitor: Consumer
File reference: 1055 – Herbex Ultraslim – Dr Harris Steinman
Outcome: New substantiation partially accepted Date :13 May 2021 The Directorate of the Advertising Regulatory Board has been called upon to consider new substantiation … Read the rest Posted 09 February 2021 A complaint was laid with the ARB (Advertising Regulatory Board) regarding Homemark’s claims for their ‘Weighted Blanket’, which claimed among other, “It is useful for anxiety and stress”, “Creates a focus on ADHD”, “Alleviates restless leg syndrome”, “Enhances sleep quality”, “It helps you stay asleep at night”. The complainant argued that these claims are not supported by evidence and therefore dupe consumers into spending around R800 for a product with no evidence of being able to help. Here is the ARB ruling Decision of the ADVERTISING REGULATORY BOARDComplainant: Dr Harris Steinman
Advertiser: Homemark (Pty) Ltd
Consumer/Competitor: Consumer
File reference: 1093 – Homemark Anti-Anxiety Weighted Blanket – Dr Harris Steinman Outcome: Upheld Date: 15 January 2021 The Directorate of the Advertising Regulatory Board has been called on to consider a complaint by Dr Harris Steinman against Homemark’s online advertising promoting its “Anti Anxiety Weighted Blanket”. The … Read the rest | |