Categories

Homemark Aragan Secret Nail Treatment Oil

Posted 20 December 2024

Homemark submitted several documents to the ARB, along with an explanation why it believes that these documents substantiate the claims that this product is making.

After considering the substantiation, the ARB was not willing to accept the 2014 report from “Dr M Burnstein Research & Development” as substantiation for efficacy claims previously ruled against.

And significantly, there is very little aragan oil in this product!

Decision of the ADVERTISING REGULATORY BOARD

Advertiser: Homemark (Pty) Ltd
Consumer/Competitor: Consumer
File reference: 3392 – Homemark Aragan Secret Nail Treatment Oil
Outcome: New substantiation not accepted
Date: 20 November 2024

The Directorate of the Advertising Regulatory Board has been called upon to consider new substantiation submitted by the Advertiser in this matter.

Background to the dispute

In 3392 – Homemark Aragan Secret Nail Treatment Oil (6 September 2024), the Directorate ruled that the Advertiser did not provide any evidence … Read the rest

December 20th, 2024 | Tags: , , | Category: ARB Rulings | Leave a comment

Homemark Ultrasonic Pest Plug / Pest Magic

Posted 13 December 2024

Homemark submitted new ‘evidence’ (substantiation) to argue that the claims for their product, Pest Magic, was true.

The ARB interrogated the substantiation, and concluded:

Accordingly, the Directorate cannot accept the new substantiation, and the claims previously held to be unsubstantiated remain, at this time, unsubstantiated and in breach of Clause 4.1 of Section II of the Code.

Furthermore:
The Complainant noted that this product is advertised as an “Ultrasonic Pest Repeller”. Ultrasonic devices emit sound. Mr Nusser, however, referred to the product as an “Electromagnetic Pest Control” device. Electromagnetic devices do not emit sound. This contradiction alone implies that the Advertiser is misleading consumers about the nature of the product.

A quick dictionary, or even Google search, would show that “ultrasonic” refers to high sound wave frequencies (too high for humans to hear), whereas “electromagnetic” refers to electronic particles and magnetic charges between them that … Read the rest

December 13th, 2024 | Tags: , , | Category: ARB Rulings | Leave a comment

Homemark Aragan Secret Nail Treatment Oil

Posted 9 September 2024

Homemark continues to dupe customers claiming, now for years, that this treatment can fix broken nails, fungal infections, etc, in spite of numerous ASA/ARB (Advertising Regulatory Board) rulings against the claims. The rulings are valid for Homemark is unable to supply a shred of evidence to back up its claims.

Now two consumers coincidentally laid a new complaint with the ARB arguing that this product is no more than a ‘scam’. The ARB asked Homemark for evidence for their claims, which Homemark was unable to supply and hence a ruling against Homemark followed.

Decision of the ADVERTISING REGULATORY BOARD

Advertiser – Homemark (Pty) Ltd
Consumer/Competitor – Consumer
File reference -3392 – Homemark Aragan Secret Nail Treatment Oil
Outcome – Partial uphold
Date – 6 September 2024

The Directorate of the Advertising Regulatory Board has been called upon to consider two consumer complaints against a commercial … Read the rest

September 9th, 2024 | Tags: , , , | Category: ARB Rulings | Leave a comment

Homemark Igia Fat Blaster – ARB Ruling

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 BOARD

Complainant: 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

September 7th, 2022 | Tags: , | Category: ARB Rulings | Leave a comment

Homemark Milex Jump Start Juicer – ARB ruling

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

May 11th, 2022 | Tags: , , | Category: ARB Rulings | Leave a comment

Wondernut: ARB Ruling

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 BOARD

Complainant: 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

March 28th, 2022 | Tags: , | Category: Wondernut, ARB Rulings | Leave a comment

OptiWay Food Intolerance Test – ARB Ruling

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 BOARD

Complainant: 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

March 28th, 2022 | Tags: , , | Category: OptiWay, ARB Rulings | Leave a comment

Nivea Luminous 630 – ARB Ruling

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 Board

Complainant: 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

June 24th, 2021 | Tags: , , | Category: Nivea, ARB Rulings | Leave a comment

Herbex UltraSlim: Advertising Regulatory Board ruling

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 Board

Complainant: 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

May 14th, 2021 | Tags: , , | Category: ARB Rulings | Leave a comment

Homemark  Anti-Anxiety  Weighted  Blanket – ARB Ruling

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 BOARD

Complainant: 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

February 10th, 2021 | Tags: , , | Category: ARB Rulings | Leave a comment
 
  Older Entries »