Warning: Illegal string offset 'singular_post_taxonomy' in /home/customer/www/camcheck.co.za/public_html/wp-content/themes/canvas/functions/admin-functions.php on line 2803

Warning: Illegal string offset 'singular_portfolio_taxonomy' in /home/customer/www/camcheck.co.za/public_html/wp-content/themes/canvas/includes/theme-functions.php on line 819

Magnesium Inflama Roll-On – ASA breach ruling

, ,

Posted 25 October 2013

As mentioned in a previous post, Marcelle du Plessis does not pay attention to societal norms or regulations or ASA rulings. In this breach complaint, i.e., she continues to make unsubstantiated claims for her products, she did not ever bother to respond to the ASA’s correspondence.

[note note_color=”#f7f792″]Magnesium Inflama Roll-On / R Jobson / 21944
Ruling of the : ASA Directorate
In the matter between:
Professor M Roy Jobson Complainant(s)/Appellant(s)
Platinum Lifestyle Products CC Respondent [/note]

23 Oct 2013



In Magnesium Inflama Roll-On / R Jobson / 21944 (18 June 2013) the Directorate found the respondent’s advertising for Magnesium Inflama Roll-On contravened Clause 4.1 of Section II of the Code.

The advertising carried a heading “Roll your Sinusitis AWAY!” and referred to the following conditions:

? “Nasal Congestion”
? “Inflammation”
? “Blocked Nose”
? “Sinus Headache”
? “Insect Bites”
“(bee stings, mosquito bites)”
? “Sinus Drip”
? “Hay fever”
? “Any PAIN”
? “Sinusitis”
? “Snoring”
? “Allergies”

The respondent was instructed to withdraw the advertising in its current format within the deadlines stipulated in Clause 15.3 of the Procedural Guide, and is not used again in future.

An Ad Alert was issued to the ASA members with reference to the advertisement.


On 17 September 2013 the complainant lodged a breach allegation against the respondent’s advertising of Magnesium Inflama Roll-on that appeared in the latest You magazine.

In essence the complainant submitted that false and unsubstantiated claims for the products continued to be made. The complainant requested an Ad Alert be issued against the respondent.

On 26 September, another example of offending advertising was submitted. Again the complainant argued that sanctions are warranted. The example attached was taken from the You Magazine published on 26 September 2013. It too contains claims similar to those previously ruled against.


In light of the breach allegation the Directorate considered Clause 15 of the Procedural Guide (Enforcement of rulings) as relevant.


All reasonable efforts were made to elicit a response from the advertiser, but none was received.


The ASA Directorate considered all the relevant documentation submitted by the respective parties.

It should also be noted that the respondent opted to ignore all reasonable requests for a response to the matter. The Directorate therefore had no option but to rule based on the material at hand.

Clause 15.1 of the Procedural Guide states that “The responsibility for adherence to a ruling made by the Directorate or the ASA Committees lies with the person against whom such ruling has been made”.

The essential question before the Directorate is whether or not the respondent’s advertisements are in breach of the original ruling. For this to be the case, the advertisements would have to be the same, or materially similar to the one originally complained of.

A preliminary examination of the respondent’s latest You magazine advertisement suggests that it has persisted in making the same, or substantially similar claims as those previously ruled against. The advertisement still created an overwhelming impression that the product is able to treat or alleviate a host of conditions and ailments. To date, however, the respondent had not submitted any acceptable evidence for such claims.

It is also worth noting that the respondent has not submitted anything to suggest that it has complied with the sanctions of obtaining ACA approval prior to publishing.

As a result, the respondent appeared to have disregarded the previous rulings and has therefore contravened the provisions of Clause 15 of the Procedural Guide.

The breach allegation is upheld.

Given this, the complainant is afforded ten working days from the date of this ruling to comment on whether or not sanctions are warranted and if so, which sanctions. After this period, the respondent will be afforded an equal opportunity.

 CamCheck posts related to Miracle Magnesium 

, ,

No comments yet.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.