Solal Tech Stress Control: ASA ruling II

Posted 18 January 2013

” . . the complainant  . . . has not advanced any arguments to back up his allegation that the claims are unsubstantiated. As such, the complaint is not complete, and amounts to little more than an allegation. In short, the complainant has not explained WHY he believes that the respondent has contravened the provisions of Clause 4.1 of Section II (which requires independent substantiation), he has simply alleged that the respondent has done so.” “Given the requirements for clear and concise grounds in the Code, and in keeping with the approach followed in the Nature’s Choice ruling referred to above, the Directorate has to decline to rule on the merits of this matter at this point in time, based on the complaint at hand.”


Read the rest