Revive Day/Night Cream – UK ASA ruling

"Revive Day/Night Cream An effective face cream. Re-energises skin cells, resulting in more effective repair and protection. Also clears skin blemishes, reduces the appearances of the lines, regenerates and strengthens the skin's moisture barrier functions, resulting in a smoother, healthier skin".

A complainant asked the UK ASA whether these claims were true.

ASA Adjudication on Foot Care 
Foot Care
11 May 2011 
http://asa.org.uk/ASA-action/Adjudications/2011/5/Foot-Care/TF_ADJ_50373.aspx

Ad
A regional press ad for three products stated: 

a. "Revive Day/Night Cream An effective face cream. Re-energises skin cells, resulting in more effective repair and protection. Also clears skin blemishes, reduces the appearances of the lines, regenerates and strengthens the skin's moisture barrier functions, resulting in a smoother, healthier skin".

b. "Clear Skin Gel acne/pimples, antifungal, antiseptic, athlete's foot, burns, cuts, scratches, dandruff, eczema, haemorrhoids, herpes simplex, insect bites, psoriasis, rash, ringworm".

c. "African Potato Cream arthritis, blemishes, cracked heels, dry skin, eczema, fibrositis, gout, insect bites, burns, muscular pain, psoriasis, rash, rheumatoid arthritis, scars, sprains, sunburn, tennis elbow".
Issue

The complainant challenged whether:

1. the claims "re-energises skin cells, resulting in more effective repair and protection", "clears skin blemishes" and "regenerates and strengthens the skin's moisture barrier functions" for product (a) could be substantiated; and

2. the claims made for products (b) and (c) were unauthorised medicinal claims.

CAP Code (Edition 12)
3.1
3.7
12.1
12.2
12.6
Response

1. Foot Care said there were no plans to advertise the products in future. They said they purchased the products from a company in South Africa who provided them with the information. They submitted this information and said it included some results of experiments completed by medical authorities.

2. They said, because they were not the manufacturer of the products, they were unaware of the requirement for medicinal claims. They said the ad claimed the creams would help relieve symptoms of the listed conditions and not cure them.

Assessment

1. & 2. Upheld

The ASA welcomed Foot Care's assurance that the products would not be advertised in future. We noted the product information provided by the manufacturer but did not consider that this substantiated the claims made for product (a). In the absence of evidence to substantiate the claims for product (a), or demonstrate that the claims for products (b) and (c) were in accordance with relevant authorisation, we considered that they were misleading. We concluded that the ad breached the Code.

The ad breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1 (Misleading advertising), 3.7 (Substantiation), 12.1, 12.2 and 12.6 (Medicines, medical devices, health-related products and beauty products).

Action

The ad must not appear again in its current form. We told Foot Care not to make claims about their products unless they held objective substantiation. We also told them not to make medicinal claims for unauthorised products.

Adjudication of the ASA Council (Non-broadcast)

No comments yet.

Leave a Reply

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