ASA Adjudication on Alliance International Ltd

Ad

A national press ad, for an eye and temple massager, was headlined “cyclone EYECLOSPSE [sic] 978 eye & temple massager!”. Text below stated “Just 5 minutes per day can significantly help to:- Provides [sic] a fantastic massage based on the acupuncture points; Reduce black eye circles; Alleviate headaches & migraines; Improve myopia (short-sightedness) & prevent eye disease; Increase blood circulation; Improve sleep quality; Provide a fantastic massage to relieve tired eyes and keep you feeling fresh and awake!”. Further text stated “Using 11 types of multi-frequency vibration, micro-magnetic electronic therapy, 5 types of intelligent air pressure with infra-red heat compression to massage the acupuncture points around the eyes & temple region. In-built music function provides heart-calming music”.

Issue

1. The complainant, a qualified optometrist, challenged whether the efficacy claims in the ad were misleading and could be substantiated.

2. The ASA challenged whether the reference to migraine, a serious medical condition, could discourage essential treatment.

CAP Code (Edition 11)

Response

1. Alliance International (AI) said the product was manufactured in China, by a company who had designed and patented the product.  They said they had re-labelled it for the UK market and had based the claims in the ad solely on information provided by the manufacturer, which included medical tests and certificates translated by an independent agency.  They said the product used Chinese acupuncture therapy, which had been renowned for its medical benefits for years; they therefore believed it was acceptable for the ad to reiterate the claims provided to them by the factory.  AI said the combination of air pressure, vibration and infra-red heat compression focused on acupuncture points to improve circulation, sleep quality, black eye circles and wrinkles.  They provided the information they had received from the manufacturer, some of which had been translated.  They said they would remove claims the ASA considered were unsubstantiated from their future ads.   

2. AI said the ad did not suggest essential treatment was not necessary but that the product could "significantly help to ... ".  They said they had not previously understood that ads should not refer to serious medical conditions and were prepared to amend their ads accordingly.

Assessment

1. Upheld

The ASA noted AI had based their claims on information provided by the manufacturers and that some of the tests they had conducted were based on clinical observations.  We also noted however that those tests did not include, for example, any published or peer reviewed controlled scientific studies.  Because we had not seen sufficient objective evidence to substantiate the efficacy claims in the ad we concluded it was misleading.    

On this point, the ad breached CAP Code clauses 3.1 (Substantiation), 7.1 and 7.2 (Truthfulness) and 50.1 (Health & beauty products and therapies - products).

2. Upheld

We considered that the ad should not refer to migraine because consumers could be discouraged from seeking essential treatment.   

On this point, the ad breached CAP Code clause 50.3 (Health and beauty products and therapies - products).

Action

The ad must not appear again in its current form.  We welcomed AIs decision to remove from their ads claims for which they did not hold robust substantiation and references to serious medical conditions.

Adjudication of the ASA Council (Non-broadcast)