ASA Adjudication on Ultralase Ltd

Ad

An internet banner promotion, for Ultralase, stated "WIN Laser Eye Treatment worth nearly £3000. "It's AMAZING that such a simple procedure can give such INCREDIBLE RESULTS" Jonathan Edwards CBE. Title: ... Email: ... Name: ... CLICK HERE". Clicking on the link led to an Ultralase website page headed "ENTER OUR FREE PRIZE DRAW". Below, text stated "By completing the Fast Form to the right of this page, you can:
Enter our monthly prize draw to win FREE laser eye treatment worth nearly £3000
Order a FREE information pack by post
Request a FREE consultation
Refer a friend who can also enter our monthly prize draw and win FREE laser eye treatment worth nearly £3000
Just fill in the details opposite and click "submit". It's as simple as that!"

Issue

1. A doctor challenged whether it was responsible, given the risks associated with medical procedures, to offer laser eye treatment as a prize in a competition.

2. The ASA challenged whether significant conditions attached to the prize promotion had been made clear, in particular that a winner would be ineligible for the prize if found unsuitable for treatment, the closing date, and that there was no cash prize alternative.

CAP Code (Edition 11)

Response

1. Ultralase explained that the monthly prize draw had been in existence for two years and was used as a way of collecting names and addresses of possible customers.   They said between 15,000 and 20,000 people entered the prize draw each month, but this was the first complaint that they had received about the promotion.  They argued that other laser eye treatment companies ran identical prize draws.  Ultralase confirmed that there was always a genuine winner of the draw.  They said the winner was subject to the same rigorous checking procedures and examination for suitability as a full paying customer and every potential patient was told of the risks involved.  They said they had strict protocols and a stringent consultation process in place so that only those suitable would be considered for treatment, which was only ever performed following a satisfactory consultation.  They said the process was not relaxed because the patient was a prize winner; the winner would not receive treatment if unsuitable.   They supplied the ASA with a summary of the pre-screening tests they conducted during a consultation.  Ultralase believed it was reasonable to assume that the prize winners had already considered laser eye treatment before seeing the ad and entering the draw, and would be aware of what was involved after their initial consultation.  They provided figures to show that half of their recent prize winners had not claimed the prize and a third of those who did claim were not suitable for treatment.  They believed the advertising was entirely responsible, open and honest.  

2. Ultralase said all the terms and conditions were available at the time of entry by using the "click" box.  They said the terms and conditions explained that treatment was subject to suitability, that there was no cash alternative price, and gave the closing date as the last Friday of each month.  

Assessment

1. Not upheld

The ASA considered that the prize draw was likely to be of interest only to people with poor eyesight, who were possibly seeking an alternative to contact lenses or glasses, and who believed laser eye treatment might benefit them.  We noted a prize winner would only receive treatment if, after a consultation, they were deemed to be suitable and that the strict consultation process was not relaxed because the patient had won the treatment as a prize.  We concluded that, given the targeted nature of the prize and the built-in protections to prevent unnecessary or unsuitable treatment, it was acceptable to offer laser eye treatment as a prize.

On this point, we investigated the ad under CAP Code clauses 2.2 (Responsible advertising) and 28.1 (Protection of consumers) but did not find it in breach.

2. Not upheld

We noted all significant terms and conditions of the prize promotion were available at the time of entry, including the conditions that the prize was only offered if the winner was suitable for treatment and that there was no cash prize alternative.  We considered that significant conditions had been made clear.

On this point, we investigated the ad under CAP Code clauses 34.1c, 34.1e, 34.1f (Significant conditions for promotions), 35.6, 35.9b (Prize promotions), and 50.6 (Health products) but did not find it in breach.

Action

No further action necessary.

Adjudication of the ASA Council (Non-broadcast)