Tag Archives | Homemark

Homemark Slim Coffee (CF formula) appeal argument

Continue Reading 1

16 April 2010

Re: Homemark Slim Coffee / HA Steinman / 12988

Judge King’s ruling, received on the 26th March 2010, which reinstated Dr Beverley Summers status as a “credible expert”, in spite of evidence that, among other errors, she had substantiated after the fact, two products ruled on and banned by the USA Federal Trade Commission following scientific scrutiny.

Judge King has therefore referred back to the ASC, for re-assessment, the claims for Slim Coffee which Dr Summers has substantiated, and which Prof Roy Jobson and I argue are insufficient to support the product’s claims. (Prof Jobson had prepared, at my request, documentary evidence in preparation for possible arbitration.)

I would therefore ask the ASC to consider the following.

Dr Beverley Summers substantiation is for studies that evaluated the ingredient Caralluma fimbriata. I have argued that the studies are conflicting and insufficient to make any claims for Read the rest

Continue Reading 1

ASA ruling: Homemark SlimCoffee breach

Continue Reading 0

Posted: 18 March 2012

Relevance of this complaint: Homemark has had an ASA ruling preventing them from making unsubstantiated claims for this product. However, months later I found it still being marketed with the same claims at Makro. Homemark claims it was an accident (as they constantly claim when in breach). I have stated before that the ASA don’t do their homework and let Homemark get away with too much.

In this instance  the ASA actually did some real digging and unearthed some facts. Wow!

While this matter was being dealt with by the ASA, Homemark’s appeal against the ASA ruling – where “pre-clearance” of their advertising was instituted (i.e., they have to have all their adverts checked by the ASC at their own cost) – was being held. 

Read the ASA ruling….

Read the rest
Continue Reading 0


Continue Reading 0

Posted 27 November 2009

This category lists complaints laid with the ASA regarding health, complimentary medicine and supplements sold by Homemark, which complainants claimed could not be substantiated.

Initially, the ASA ruled in most cases in favour of the complainant, but as Homemark started finding “credible experts” willing to substantiate a product, the ruling may have gone in the favour of Homemark.

In some instances, arbitration was requested – with a subsequent ruling against Homemark’s product.

In some instances, the complainant did not pursue the complaint further.

In time as the site develops, we will flesh out and explain why the ruling in favour of Homemark was incorrect, using science, logic and common sense! 

Rulings against Homemark:

Enforma / Homemark – Sweat Away the Pounds / 4012*

Homemark – Sweat Away /  9114*

Homemark – Butterfly Abs / 3283

Homemark – Detox Food Pads /  8938

Homemark – Reduce Fat-Fast Read the rest

Continue Reading 0

ASA Ruling: Homemark Detox Footpads

Continue Reading 0

Posted 23 February 2014

Homemark claims that Detox Footpads can remove toxins from your body. They are supported by Dr Frederick Motz, who claims this is true. 

We say this is rubbish.

The USA FDA/FTC says this is rubbish.

In fact, physiology and common sense tells us this is rubbish.

See what an investigative reporter has to say: Detox Con!

See also: Kinoki Foot Pad marketers charged

Then read how the ASA ruled.

Read the rest
Continue Reading 0