ASA Adjudication on PharmaClinix Ltd

Ad

Monitoring staff viewed a TV ad, for Lightenex Plus skin cream on B4U, Zee TV and Star TV which featured a young Asian woman dressed in white and sitting in a white room containing white furniture and fittings. The voiceover stated "Introducing new Lightenex Plus by PharmaClinix. This extra-strength skin-lightening formulation is specially developed for severe pigmentation. Lightenex Plus, beautiful skin matters". An animated sparkling-white skin cell, titled “melanocyte”, appeared on the screen alongside smaller darker cells. The scene returned to the woman in white and a glowing halo of light flashed across her face, arms and the pack shot. On-screen text stated "extra strength skin lightening cream".

Issue

Monitoring staff challenged whether evidence substantiated the direct and implied claims that Skin Lightenex Plus lightened skin.

BCAP TV Code

Response

B4U and Zee TV issued a joint response. Both broadcasters said they had stopped running the ad as soon as they were made aware of the potential problem and would not run it again until they were certain it was acceptable. They submitted the results of a trial, which was carried out on 15 women in Poland, as evidence. They added that the advertiser had conducted human studies and employed a dermatologist to assess the efficacy of the product. They believed the individuals and laboratory involved in testing the product were both reputable and suitably qualified and considered that the results proved the product had a positive effect on skin colouring, brightening and pigmentation.

Star TV confirmed they would not run the ad again until they were certain it was acceptable.

Assessment

The ASA noted this was the second time that Monitoring staff had contacted Zee TV and B4U about the broadcasts of the Skin Lightenex ad. Also, we noted STAR TV had previously run an ad for a similar product and had been warned by ASA(B) that the evidence held was not sufficiently robust to prove the skin-lightening claims. We also noted the Monitoring team had already advised B4U that ads for this type of product should, at the very minimum, be supported by double-blind or placebo-controlled experimental human studies.

Upheld

We noted the ad referred to severe skin pigmentation and we considered that the numerous visual references to white and light, the inclusion of a quasi-scientific image of a white skin cell and the name and description of the product as an "extra strength skin lightening cream" implied that the product could effectively and noticeably lighten skin tone. We considered that the evidence submitted did not substantiate that implication because the trial had been carried out on women from an ethnic background and age range different from those being targeted by the ad. We considered that the trial was insufficiently robust because of the small number of participants and the absence of a control group and double-blind procedure. We also noted the trial had not been peer-reviewed. We concluded that the skin-lightening claims were not supported by adequate evidence of efficacy and that the ad could mislead. We reminded the broadcasters that the Note to rule 5.2.1 (Evidence) stated "a claim can be implied or direct, written, spoken or visual. The name of a product or service may in itself be regarded as a claim".

The ad breached CAP (Broadcast) TV Advertising Standards Code rules 5.1.1 (Misleading advertising) and 5.2.1 (Evidence).

Action

We concluded that the ad must not be shown again in its present form and that the product should not be advertised without adequate substantiation for the claims made for it.

Adjudication of the ASA Council (Broadcast)