ASA Adjudication on AMI Clinic Ltd

Ad

A regional press ad for clinics offering treatments for sexual dysfunction stated “Your problem: sex that lasts just seconds. Your solution: a single phone call … Our specialist clinics have helped thousands of men … Consultations are FREE, private and sympathetic - they will give you the results you need. No matter where you live, a phone consultation, at Harley Street or a local clinic is available to you. To secure a FREE consultation please text or call now.”

Issue

The complainant objected that the claim "Consultations are FREE" was misleading, because, when he visited the advertisers clinic, he had to give his credit card details and pay a deposit before he was able to have a consultation.

CAP Code (Edition 11)

Response

AMI Clinic Ltd t/a Advanced Medical Institute (AMI) stated that patients were asked to bring two pieces of ID to an appointment, one of which could be a passport, a credit or debit card or a driving licence.  They confirmed that no charge was ever made for their initial consultation and patients were not obliged to proceed with any other dealings with AMI after the initial free consultation.  They explained that, during the initial consultation, an assessment was made of the prospective patient and if he was found to have premature ejaculation or erectile dysfunction, he would be offered an ongoing treatment programme, which he could accept or reject. They said that, if he chose to proceed with that further treatment programme, charges then were levied for additional treatment.  They specified that that did not involve a payment being levied retrospectively for the initial consultation, which remained free of charge, and that deposits were not taken from patients before their consultation.  They provided documentation that showed that patients had not been charged for the initial consultation.  They looked at the complainants records and confirmed he had attended a free consultation and was prescribed medication for his condition.  They said they had no record that he had been charged a pre-consultation fee.

Assessment

Not upheld

The ASA understood that patients were expected to show ID before their consultation, but that this did not have to include a credit card.  We noted that AMI had provided documentation showing that a number of patients had not been charged for the initial consultation. We noted that the complainant had received medication, which we understood would not be provided free of charge.

Because AMI had provided substantiation which showed that the initial consultation was provided free, we concluded that the ad was not misleading.

We investigated the ad under CAP Code clauses 3.1 (Substantiation), 7.1 and 7.2 (Truthfulness), but did not find it in breach.

Action

No further action necessary.

Adjudication of the ASA Council (Non-broadcast)