ASA Adjudication on Datel Group plc

Ad

In March, the Monitoring team saw two new ads for a Max Turbo Toning belt on Max TV. While a woman demonstrated how the belt could be used, the presenter said “It can actually be used on all different areas of your body including your back, your shoulders, your thighs, your hips and your tummy, so basically all the usual problem areas. The toning belt has got several different settings so you are completely in control of the intensity of your workout.” Testimonials said “It’s handy because you use it on your wobbly bits”, “it really worked for me”, “It makes me feel energised afterwards” and “I use it twice a week and it’s great.” The presenter explained “Also, time wise, using this isn’t going to take up any more of your day because it can be used whilst you’re doing other things like reading or watching the television or even sitting at your desk. Whatever you want to do, you can carry on with your day whilst you’re using the toning belt … To order yours, call 0845 xxx xxx … and for just £29.99 this turbo toning slimming belt will be winging its way to you in no time at all.”

Issue

Monitoring staff challenged whether:

1. there was evidence to substantiate the claim that the Max Turbo Toning belt toned, slimmed and gave users a workout;

2. Max TV had obtained suitably qualified independent medical advice on the efficacy of Turbo Toning Belt as a weight-control product as required by rule 8.4.2.

BCAP TV Code

Response

Max TV submitted evidence from various studies that evaluated the effects of whole-body vibration from gentle exercise on a vibration platform.  They maintained that the studies substantiated the claims in the ad.  Max TV explained that they had relied on the vibration exercise studies and the general principle that exercise would result in toning along with a calorie-controlled diet.  They added that the claims were made by the producers of the product and were widespread in the advertisements for this type of product in the USA.

Assessment

We were concerned that Max TV had failed in its compliance procedures despite the monitoring team explaining that there was no evidence to substantiate claims for a similar belt in January.

1. Upheld

We noted the evidence Max TV had supplied was for a different product.  We concluded that the evidence did not substantiate the claims for the advertised product, including the claim in the products name.  Also, we noted the ASA had recently evaluated the efficacy of whole-body vibration for slimming and strength claims and concluded that the evidence was inadequate.  We noted the ad referred to a "workout".  We considered that that was misleading, because no aerobic exercise was involved in wearing the belt.

The ads breached CAP (Broadcast) TV Advertising Standards Code rules 5.1 (Misleading) and 5.2.1 (Evidence).

2. Upheld

We noted Max TV had not sought expert advice on the efficacy of the Turbo Toning Belt as a weight-control product.

The ads breached CAP (Broadcast) TV Advertising Standards Code rule 8.4.2 (Requirement for medical advice).

Action

The ads must not be shown again in their present form and the product should not be advertised without adequate substantiation for the claims made for it.

Adjudication of the ASA Council (Broadcast)