Not upheld

The ASA noted that the CAP Code required homeopathic medicinal products to be registered in the UK and to confine information given in marketing communications to that which appeared on the product label.

We noted for Boots Teething Pain Relief that the claim in the ad, “For the symptomatic relief of teething pain” was consistent with the claim which had been approved in the correspondence with the MHRA. Likewise, with the New Era product we noted that the approved indications in the PLR - “coughs, colds, chestiness and allied conditions” were also consistent with the ad which referred to “Coughs, Colds and Chestiness”.

We noted that the CAP Code also required medicines to have a licence from the MHRA before they were marketed and that ads for those products should conform with the SPC. We noted that the approved claim for Metatone as stated in the SPC was that it was “indicated in the management of convalescence and debility” and we considered that the claims on the website, “Metatone ... helps restore Health & Vitality after illness such as colds and flus, and when you are feeling tired and run down” and that it helped “provide a gentle boost after illness” were consistent with that approved claim. We noted that the Potters Allerclear product been given a PLR when it was first licensed and currently retained that licence and we therefore understood that the PLR replaced the SPC with regard to that product. We noted that the PLR provided for claims to be made in regard of the symptomatic relief of catarrh, rhinitis and nasal congestion and we considered that the claim “Garlic and its oil are anti-catarrhal and helps [sic] loosen phlegm” was in line with that description. We also noted that the exact claim “Echinacea is anti-inflammatory and stimulates the immune system” was also included in the SPC and concluded that the descriptions of the Potter’s product were consistent.

Because the descriptions of the products in the promotion were, in all cases, consistent with the approved claims, we concluded that the promotion was not misleading.

We investigated the promotion under CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1 (Misleading Advertising), 3.7 (Substantiation), 12.1, 12.11 and 12.20 (Medicines, medical devices, health-related products and beauty products) but did not find it in breach.