Archive | Rulings

A collection of pertinent ASA (Advertising Standards Authority) or FTC (USA Federal Trade Commission) rulings

UK ASA ruling: Ionic Bracelet

Continue Reading 1

A magazine ad, for the Ionic Bracelet, was headed "Get rid of aches and pains by wearing this incredible bracelet".

Below, text stated "Try the Ionic Bracelet and see for yourself its incredible effects. The results are amazing. . You should wear it on the left wrist, with the little balls facing downwards if you suffer from menstrual pains, tachycardia, phlebitis, varicose veins, circulatory complaints, a tendency to obesity, digestive problems or constipation … After fifteen days, you will find that your well-being has been permanently restored … rediscover the pleasure of a pain-free life".

Read the rest
Continue Reading 1

UK ASA ruling: Wartner wart removal

Continue Reading 0

The ASA considered that the ad, particularly the voice-over and on-screen text "Wartner freezes warts and verrucas to the core in one treatment", implied that Wartner would remove a wart or verruca in one treatment.

We noted the evidence did not prove that that was the case; rather the safety report and Wartner packaging stated that two or three treatments could be required and the testimonials did not comment on whether the product removed warts or verrucas in one treatment.

We considered that, because Wartner did not remove all warts or verrucas in one treatment, the ad was likely to mislead.

Read the rest
Continue Reading 0

Neu-U – Austell Laboratories

Continue Reading 0

Posted 05 February 2009

A consumer complaint was laid against a print advertisement for “Neu-U” in Modern Medicine magazine (and also advertised on a website).

The advertisement is headed “THE LATEST WEIGHT MANAGEMENT SOLUTION” and states, inter alia, that “In-vitro tests conducted on a gastrointestinal model have shown that NeOptunina reduces fat absorption by 28,3%”.

It also contains a pack shot featuring the words “clinically proven fat binder”.  In essence, the complainant submitted that the in-vitro study referred to was a computer assisted model and no testing was done on animals or humans to determine whether the claims apply when used by humans. In addition, no other studies have been done on this product.

Read the rest
Continue Reading 0

Hoodia Slender Gel / Slender Max

Continue Reading 2

Posted 5 February 2009

A consumer complaint against a Hoodia Slender Gel internet advertisement that appeared on http://www.planethoodia.co.za and on promotional pamphlets was laid with the ASA. The advertisements claims that the product, inter alia, “SUPPRESSES APPETITE”, or “will assist with: SUPRESSING YOUR APPETITE & CRAVINGS” “REDUCES CRAVINGS” INCREASES ENERGY LEVELS “ENHANCES SKIN TONE”, OR “will assist with: … IMPROVING YOUR SKIN TONE” “will assist with: … REDUCING THE APPEARANCE OF CELLULITE” “will assist with: … INCREASING BODY DETOXIFICATION”.

We said: Nonsense – no robust evidence to support this claim!

What did the ASA rule?

NB: This product has changed its name from Hoodia Slender Gel to Slender Max

 

Read the rest
Continue Reading 2

USN Cellu-Firm – ASA Sanctions – 16 October 2008

Continue Reading 0

In a ruling dated 8 April 2008, the ASA found the USN in breach of its earlier ruling dated 28 November 2006 in that USN did not submit adequate substantiation in terms of the Code for its “anti-cellulite” claims, but still continued making these claims on its website. The consumer and USN were afforded an opportunity to comment on whether or not sanctions were appropriate.

Read the rest
Continue Reading 0

USN Cellu-Firm – ASA Breach ruling – 8 April 2008

Continue Reading 0

In a ruling dated 28 November 2006, the ASA ruled against the USN’s print advertisement for its “Cellu-Firm” product. In a letter dated 26 February 2008, a consumer argued that USN is in breach of the original ruling as it continues making misleading statements about the product on its website.

The ASA ruled in favour of the complainant.

Read the rest
Continue Reading 0