Solal, guilty: another breach ruling

Posted 19 April 2012

Seems like Solal are simply unable to learn from their mistakes, nor from changing their vexatious attitude to the ASA, or those laying complaints with the ASA.. This attitude and approach clearly reflects directly on the personality, ethics and morals of the directors of Solal, and therefore, can one trust them at all? 

See also for previous related rulings.

Read the rest

Solal Eyesight Protection, another adverse ASA ruling

Posted 24 January 2012

The ASA previously ruled against Solal's claims for their Eyesight ProtectionTM  product. One of the claims made for this product was   “Eyesight Protection TM” helped “protect the eyes against eye damage from UV-sun rays …”, “Minimises low-light vision loss, eye fatigue, intolerance to glare and other eye disorders” and should be used “… on a regular basis … even in the absence of symptoms …” 

In the previous ruling, the ASA concluded that Solal's expert, Dr Terry Grossman, was not a "true" expert. In this ruling, the ASA has supplied new substantiation. Still not enough to sway the ASA. Sometimes the ASA does get a ruling wrong (in my opinion), but in this instance, I think that they were again spot on. In fact, I commend the ASA on a well reasoned ruling.

Read the rest