Tag Archives | Slim Coffee

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

Homemark

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