1. Optical Express Ltd (Optical Express) said the lasers now used by Optical Express in all of their treatment clinics to perform LASIK (laser eye surgery) were the most advanced lasers available and were proven to improve patient outcomes. They provided a study conducted by the US Navy which they said showed that visual performance during night driving improved after LASIK using the same lasers used by Optical Express. They said better vision after surgery, as well as fast visual recovery, had been demonstrated by using the most advanced laser systems available at Optical Express.
Optical Express said Advanced CustomVue technologies delivered unsurpassed precision and accuracy. They said that, with over 20 years of laser vision research and innovation and over seven million procedures, Advanced CustomVue carried out using the VISX STAR S4 IR excimer laser was the most advanced laser vision correction procedure available. They said that was confirmed in an e-mail from the manufacturer, a copy of which they provided.
Optical Express said the Advanced Medical Optics Inc. (AMO) iFS 150 Laser was designed to deliver a biomechanically engineered flap in the patient’s cornea that could be customised for every individual eye. They said innovations present in that laser reduced the time required to dissect a flap and created more options in how to shape flaps that in turn improved patient outcomes. They included a variety of other articles and presentations in support of the claim.
2. Optical Express said a comprehensive study had been conducted by the US Navy to determine the pre-operative to post-operative changes in night driving performances after LASIK. They said the outcome was that the CustomVue procedure resulted in an average improvement in night driving visual performance and, on the strength of that study, NASA has approved LASIK for astronauts. They provided a copy of the study and other documentary evidence in support of the claims.
3. Optical Express said, by continuing to minimise post-operative refractive error through the use of better surgical calculations and improved technology, visual complaints such as night glare and halo could be eliminated. They said Wavefront therefore eliminated night vision problems, and provided two studies in support of the claim.
4. Optical Express said a supplement to the Journal of Refractive Surgery (JRS), titled Clinical Outcomes and Quality of Care in Refractive Surgery, contained articles detailing Optical Express’s practices, research outcomes, patient satisfaction, biostatistical analysis and patient selection methods. Optical Express said that supplement had been sponsored by them and that the articles published within the supplement underwent a rigorous review process by the journal to ensure that they were free of any bias and were scientifically sound. They provided a letter from the JRS outlining the procedures for the commercially sponsored section and a copy of the submission guidelines for commercially sponsored material.
Optical Express acknowledged that those guidelines did not include a peer-review process for commercially sponsored articles, but said that the claim in the ad did not refer to academic procedures and did not believe readers would interpret the claim to mean that the articles referred to had been peer reviewed.
Optical Express said the ESCRS Eurotimes May 2010 supplement entitled Laser Vision Correction: Using Biostatistics to Revolutionise Refractive Surgery Outcomes, was compiled using results from 30,000 Optical Express treatments. They said that supplement was funded by Abbott Medical Optics (AMO) and that Eurotimes applied the same editorial processes as the JRS with regard to the content in their sponsored sections. They provided an e-mail from AMO which they said showed that the articles in that supplement were subject to independent editorial control.
Optical Express said the terms of the sponsorship in both publications meant that the sponsor met the costs of producing the supplements but paid no fee for their inclusion, nor did they pay for the editorial and journalistic work provided by the journals. They said the cost to Optical Express of collating the data for the supplements far outweighed the amount paid towards their production.
Optical Express said they had published 15 articles in the last 15 months and submitted a selection of articles from other publications. They said the average number of subjects in published peer-reviewed journal articles was approximately 200 and the sheer volume of quality data in their studies vastly eclipsed that number. They believed the volume of data they published greatly exceeded anything published by any other single provider of refractive surgery and therefore justified the claim “well documented”.
5. Optical Express said they were the number one provider of laser eye surgery in Europe and this was due, in part, to the number of procedures Optical Express had carried out. They said that Optical Express had treated 618,709 eyes to date, whereas Optimax’s and Ultralase’s promotional materials stated that those companies had only treated “over 300,000” and “more than 200,000” respectively.
6. Optical Express provided a report on the refractive surgery market in support of the claim that more people were treated with the VISX S4IR than any other laser.
7. Optical Express said the claim was not that a greater proportion of patients who had laser eye surgery with Optical Express achieved a better outcome than patients who have equivalent laser eye surgery with other providers but instead related to absolute numbers. They said because they had shown in their response to point 5 that they undertook a much greater number of treatments than any other operator, and because 97.7% of their patients achieved UCVA 20/20 or better, it followed that many more patients achieved better than 20/20 vision with Optical Express.
Optical Express said, notwithstanding that, they believed that were the claim to be interpreted to mean that a greater proportion of their patients achieved better than 20/20 vision than at other providers, that claim also could be substantiated. They provided a research document containing figures from Optical Express, Ultralase and Optimax that they believed showed that a higher proportion of patients achieved better than 20/20 at Optical Express.
8. Optical Express said they had been advised by the former Deputy Program Director of Refractive Surgery for the US Navy that all excimer lasers in the US Navy treatment centres were VISX S4IR and that all patients were treated with Wavefront CustomVue technology unless there were technical or clinical reasons why they could not be. They said all service members treated in a US Navy facility, with the exception of some clinical trials, were therefore only treated on that platform. They said designated US Navy aviators whose vision naturally deteriorated over time would lose their unrestricted flight status unless they had laser eye surgery and that such patients all had their treatments on the VISX S4IR platform.
9. Optical Express said they had recently upgraded all their flap-creation lasers to the AMO iFS 150 which was the latest generation of Intralase technology. They said that level of technology had significant clinical benefits over previous versions and meant that the corneal flap could be created in a more efficient time. They referred to their response to point one and also said no other multiple provider in the UK had invested in that technology in all their centres.
10. Optical Express said the Road Traffic Act 1988 required that a license holder or applicant could read, in good light, a car number plate from a distance of 20 metres and believed that was the most appropriate, objective standard against which to measure the proportion of patients who post-operatively required glasses for distance vision.
Optical Express submitted data from their own patient records that they said demonstrated that 99.95% of patients whose one month post-operative results were analysed, met that standard and therefore believed that they had substantiated the claim.
11. Optical Express said they had treated 75,000 eyes in their European clinics and referred to the figures supplied in their response to point 5. They said, based on those figures and even allowing for growth in the market, Optical Express believed that Optimax would treat around 27,000 eyes in the UK in the whole of 2010 and that Ultralase would treat 21,000 in the UK in the same period. They said it was therefore clear that Optical Express would treat more eyes per week than any other UK operator by a factor of between three and four.
12. Optical Express supplied documentation which they believed supported the claim that they were Europe’s number one provider of laser eye surgery. They said that document was supported by the treatment numbers referenced in their response to point 5.
13. Optical Express said an article from the Washington Times confirmed that the LASIK procedures had been approved by NASA for the treatment of US astronauts and said Optical Express used the same laser technology that directly led to that approval being granted.
14. Optical Express provided an e-mail from the manufacturers of the iFS 150 which they believed confirmed that they were the only provider with that laser in every clinic.
15. Optical Express said there were no circumstances in which an Optical Express Customer would have to pay for a consultation and that there was no charge if a consultation was cancelled, or if a customer failed to attend.
Optical Express said their competitors Optimax and Ultralase, did not offer a completely free consultation in all circumstances. They provided copies of those companies’ terms and conditions and other documentary evidence, which they said showed that Optimax and Ultralase both charged fees in the event that consultations were cancelled.
16.,17.,19.,& 20. Optical Express said they had not intended for the table on the back of the ad to be read as a series of claims that no other provider supplied the listed services or features, but rather that the services listed were not available from all other providers. They said they accepted, in hindsight, that the table presented that information in a way that was ambiguous and they could not establish that the referenced services and features were unique to Optical Express.
18. Optical Express said no other multiple provider of laser eye surgery had the option available of intraocular lens treatment being carried out in its clinics as well as both glasses and contact lenses, as alternatives to laser eye surgery. Optical Express supplied a copy of Optimax’s brochure which they said showed that Optimax only provided laser eye surgery.
21. Optical Express supplied a graph, showing the results of a customer survey, which they believed substantiated the claim that over 98% of patients would recommend them to friends and family.
22. Optical Express supplied a spreadsheet showing the totals of procedures performed by the surgeons engaged by Optical Express worldwide. They pointed out that the total number of procedures was 721,107 and said that figure did not include surgeons engaged in clinics in Japan. They believed there were also additional procedures that had not yet been identified.
23. Optical Express said, for the reasons given in their response to point 1, the iFS 150 was the most technologically advanced laser used by laser eye surgery providers in the UK and was used in all Optical Express clinics.
Optical Express said, for the reasons given in their response to points 1 and 2, the AMO manufactured VISX STAR S4R IR was the most technologically advanced excimer laser used by laser eye surgery providers within the UK and was available in all Optical Express surgical centres.
24. Optical Express said they did not believe that the words attributed to Padraig Harrington implied that he had had his laser eye surgery at Optical Express. They said the words were plainly prospective and indicated a wish or want on the part of Mr Harrington as opposed to a comment on his personal experience. They pointed out that the clinic at which Mr Harrington had his original treatment was now part of Optical Express.
25. Optical Express said the ad was an endorsement of laser eye surgery by Padraig Harrington based on his own experience of its benefits. They said Padraig Harrington extolled the benefits of laser eye surgery for a professional golfer and advised that customers who might want the same benefits from laser eye surgery should visit Optical Express. Optical Express said the TV ad did not relate, or in any way concern, any claim made by Mr Harrington as to the place where he had undergone laser eye surgery or the provider who undertook that surgery. They said there was no ambiguity, misleading content or impression, implication or innuendo in the ad.
Clearcast said the TV ad contained nothing that suggested that Padraig Harrington had had laser eye surgery and therefore believed that it did not, in any way, suggest he had had laser eye surgery at Optical Express. They believed that Padraig Harrington was merely saying that one needed good vision to play golf and was therefore suggesting that viewers considered Optical Express who offered laser eye surgery.
THIS ADJUDICATION REPLACES THAT PUBLISHED ON 27 APRIL 2011. THE WORDING ON POINT 11 HAS BEEN CHANGED BUT THE 'UPHELD' DECISION REMAINS THE SAME.
1. Upheld
The ASA understood that the first stage of the LASIK procedure was the creation of a flap in the surface of the cornea which then allowed access to the middle layer of the cornea on which the actual surgery was performed. We understood that the flap could be created using a physical blade or a laser.
We understood that a separate laser was then used to reshape the middle layer of the cornea to improve the patient’s sight. We understood that that aspect of procedure could be performed using a standard set of measurements or that an a more advanced procedure called CustomVue could be performed using a bespoke set of measurements generated by software called Wavefront. We understood that any combination of flap creation and corneal re-shaping methods could be used.
We noted that the complainant had acknowledged that the AMO iFS 150 Laser used by Optical Express for flap creation was the most technologically advanced available for that aspect of the procedure. However, we also noted that the complainant believed that the VISX laser used by Optical Express for shaping the cornea was not the most advanced on the market.
We noted the studies provided by Optical Express. However, we noted that those studies compared the outcomes of subjects who had received different types of LASIK surgery such as bladed and laser flap creation and did not compare the specific technologies used to conduct the surgery. We therefore considered that those studies did not show that the VISX laser, or the Wavefront technology offered by Optical Express was the latest or most advanced.
We also noted the e-mail from AMO. However, we noted that that e-mail only stated that Optical Express were using the most advanced laser vision correction technology available from AMO and not that they were using the latest technology available in the industry as a whole. Because we had not seen evidence that Optical Express’s VISX laser eye surgery technology was the latest or most advanced, we concluded that the claims were misleading.
On this point the ad breached CAP Code (Edition 11) clauses 3.1 (Substantiation), 7.1 (Truthfulness) and 18.1 and 18.3 (Comparisons with identified competitors and/or their products).
2. Upheld
We noted the articles and the presentation provided by Optical Express and we understood from those articles that NASA had approved LASIK which used laser flap creation (all-laser LASIK) and not procedures using bladed flap creation. We therefore understood that there were some types of LASIK which were not approved by NASA and we therefore concluded that the absolute claim that “NASA approved LASIK for astronauts” was misleading.
On this point the ad breached CAP Code (Edition 11) clauses 3.1 (Substantiation) and 7.1 (Truthfulness).
3. Upheld
We considered that the claim that Wavefront-guided LASIK eliminated night vision problems was an absolute claim that Wavefront technology could completely remove any pre-existing night vision problems such as glare and halo and would not create any new problems.
We noted that the first study provided by Optical Express investigated the correlation between patient perception and clinical measurements after Wavefront-guided LASIK, and that subjects had been asked to report changes in their night vision and associated problems, such as the presence of glare and halos around light sources in their vision, before and after surgery.
We noted from the results that 26% of subjects reported improvements in their night vision and that 28% reported a decreased frequency of visual symptoms such as glare or halos. We also understood from the results of post-operative questioning that an equal number of subjects reported worsened night vision after surgery as those who reported an improvement. We therefore considered that, while the study showed that Wavefront-guided LASIK could result in an improvement in night vision and a reduction in glare and halos, it did not do so in all cases.
We also noted the second study provided by Optical Express compared pre-operative and post-operative changes in night driving performance in subjects after they had received either conventional LASIK (cLASIK) or Wavefront-guided LASIK (wLASIK).
However, we also noted that the cLASIK group had had their surgery performed with bladed flap creation, while the wLASIK group had received laser flap creation, which we understood was a more advanced method. We were therefore concerned that the two procedures had been performed differently and consequently that the outcomes attributed to wLASIK might not necessarily be as a result of the Wavefront technology alone.
We also noted that the study identified several limitations with the study design, including problems of bias introduced by the self-selection of participants. While we noted that the study did show some improvement in the wLASIK group’s ability to identify road hazards at night, it did not show that it had eradicated the night vision problems, such as glare or halo, referred to in the ad. We also noted the newspaper articles provided by Optical Express, but did not consider that they were suitable to demonstrate the effect of Wavefront technology on night vision problems.
Because we considered that the evidence provided did not show that Wavefront eliminated night vision problems, we therefore concluded that the claim “Wavefront eliminates night vision problems” was misleading.
On this point the ad breached CAP Code (Edition 11) clauses 3.1 (Substantiation) and 7.1 (Truthfulness).
4. Upheld
We considered that the claim "... our clinical excellence is well documented in leading research journals across Europe and the US" would be interpreted by readers to mean that Optical Express had been widely documented as having particularly high standards of treatment and care in independent, peer-reviewed articles published by reputable international journals.
We noted the JRS and ESCRS supplements provided by Optical Express, and we also noted that all the articles in those supplements were commercially sponsored and had been authored by members of Optical Express’s International Medical Advisory Board. We also understood, from the submission guidelines provided that material which appeared in the commercially sponsored sections, although edited by the publications themselves to remove commercial bias and ensure scientific rigour, were not subject to peer-review. We therefore considered that those articles were not sufficiently independent or robust to support the claim.
We noted the selection of other articles and extracts from online news magazines provided by Optical Express but we also noted that they consisted of short discussions of laser eye technology and treatment in general, and did not assess the clinical practice of Optical Express.
We considered that the articles provided by Optical Express were not suitable to support the claim made in the ad, and therefore concluded that the claim was misleading.
On this point the ad breached CAP Code (Edition 11) clauses 3.1 (Substantiation) and 7.1 (Truthfulness).
5. Upheld
We considered that the claim "It's Official. More people choose Optical Express than any other laser eye surgery provider" was an objective claim capable of substantiation with robust, comparative independent evidence that Optical Express currently had the largest market share of any UK provider.
Although we noted Optical Express’s argument that they had, to date, treated more individual eyes than their competitors, we did not consider that historical figures alone were sufficient to demonstrate that more people currently chose Optical Express than other providers. We also did not consider that the approximate figures stated in the competitors’ promotional material was suitably robust to substantiate their respective market shares.
Because we had not seen robust comparative evidence that demonstrated that Optical Express had a larger market share than their competitors, we concluded that the claim was misleading.
On this point the ad breached CAP Code (Edition 11) clauses 3.1 (Substantiation), 7.1 (Truthfulness) and 18.1 and 18.3 (Comparisons with identified competitors and/or their products).
6. Upheld
We noted that the ad claimed that more people were treated with the VISX S4IR laser than any other laser in the world and we noted the Market Scope report supplied by Optical Express. While we noted that that report stated that AMO had 41% of global revenues as a manufacturer and a 30.5% market share, we also noted that it did not include any data to support the figures given. We also noted that those figures related to the whole range of AMO-VISX lasers and not specifically to the VISX S4IR laser referred to in the ad.
Notwithstanding that, we did not consider that revenue or market share figures alone, which related to the number of lasers sold and not the number of people treated with those lasers, was suitable to demonstrate that more people in the world had received treatment with one laser treatment-type than another.
Because we had not see evidence that showed that more people were treated with the VISX-S4IR laser than any other laser in the world, we concluded that the claim was misleading.
On this point the ad breached CAP Code (Edition 11) clauses 3.1 (Substantiation), 7.1 (Truthfulness) and 18.1 and 18.3 (Comparisons with identified competitors and/or their products).
7. Upheld
We noted Optical Express believed that the claim "More patients achieve better than 20/20 vision with Optical Express than with any other provider in the UK and Europe*" related to the absolute number of patients treated and not to proportions of patients achieving that result. However, we considered that the claim implied that Optical Express achieved 20/20 or better results for a greater proportion of their patients than any other provider. We therefore considered that readers would infer that they were more likely to obtain a better result with Optical Express than with their competitors. We considered that impression was reinforced by small print at the bottom of the page that stated “* One-month outcomes of wavefront [sic] guided LASIK for low to moderate myopia with the VISX STAR S4 IR laser in 32,569 eyes”.
We noted the research document provided by Optical Express. However we noted that the comparisons in that document were based on figures taken from Ultralase’s and Optimax’s websites and not from independent, robust, comparative data.
Because we had not seen robust, comparative evidence that a greater proportion of Optical Express’s patients achieved 20/20 vision than with other providers, we concluded that the claim was misleading.
On this point the ad breached CAP Code (Edition 11) clauses 3.1 (Substantiation), 7.1 (Truthfulness) and 18.1 and 18.3 (Comparisons with identified competitors and/or their products).
8. Upheld
We considered that the claim that all servicemen in the US Navy who required laser eye surgery were treated with the VISX S4IR laser with Wavefront, was an objective claim capable of substantiation with recent, official documentation from the US Navy that showed that it was their policy to use that laser and technology.
We noted that Optical Express had been advised by a senior, former member of US Navy staff that servicemen were treated using the VISX S4IR laser. However, we noted that we had not seen a written copy of that advice. We also did not consider that anecdotal evidence was sufficient to support the claim, and because we had not seen documentary evidence that all servicemen in the US Navy who required eye surgery were treated with the VISX S4IR laser and Wavefront technology, we concluded that the claim was misleading.
On this point the ad breached CAP Code (Edition 11) clauses 3.1 (Substantiation) and 7.1 (Truthfulness).
9. Upheld
We considered that the claim "WHY THE iFS 150? ... Unbeatable precision; Unbeatable accuracy; Faster treatment; Faster results; Better results" required robust comparative evidence that showed that the iFS laser was as precise and accurate as other lasers, as well as faster and capable of delivering better clinical outcomes than any other laser on the market, in order to substantiate it.
We noted the Refractive Eyecare and Eyeworld articles supplied by Optical Express. However, we noted that, while those articles described many of the laser’s benefits, they did not show that it was equally precise and accurate as other lasers or better than any other in terms of treatment and results. We also noted the e-mail from the manufacturer of the iFS 150, but noted that that email stated that the laser was the most advanced available from AMO and not in the market as a whole. Notwithstanding that, we did not consider that an assurance from a manufacturer of one product alone would be sufficient to substantiate the comparative claims made about all lasers in the ad.
Because we considered that we had not seen evidence that the iFS 150 was unbeatable for precision and accuracy, faster or offered better patient outcomes than other lasers, we concluded that the claim was misleading.
On this point the ad breached CAP Code (Edition 11) clauses 3.1 (Substantiation), 7.1 (Truthfulness) and 18.1 and 18.3 (Comparisons with identified competitors and/or their products).
10. Upheld
We noted that the ad stated "Less than 1 in 1,000 patients requires glasses for distance vision following treatment". While we noted that Optical Express believed that the legal eyesight requirement for driving was the most appropriate objective standard for assessing the claim “distance vision”, we did not consider that readers of the ad would necessarily interpret an unqualified claim about distance vision in those terms, and were likely to assume that it related to a different ophthalmological test or that it was a more general claim about the quality of vision over distance. We also noted that the second part of the claim stated “... and the majority of those who do, only require them for specific tasks” which we considered reinforced the impression that the term ‘distance vision’ was being used more generally. We were therefore concerned that the claim was ambiguous and could confuse readers.
We noted that the data submitted by Optical Express showed, for each month from April 2009 to May 2010 inclusive, how many patients had been treated and what percentage of them subsequently met the eyesight standard set out in the Road Traffic Act 1988. We noted that that data incorporated 19,900 patients in total and that, overall, 99.9% were able to meet the standard and we therefore considered that Optical Express had demonstrated that one person in 1000 required glasses to pass the legal driving test following surgery. However, we also noted that the claim in the ad was that “less than” one in 1000 patients required glasses which we considered implied that the results would be better than that ratio, and we did not consider that the data supported that, more specific, claim.
Because the ad did not make clear the basis of the ‘distance vision’ claim, and because we considered that the evidence submitted did not show that “less than one in 1000 patients” required glasses to meet the legal driving standard after surgery, we concluded that the claim was misleading.
On this point the ad breached CAP Code (Edition 11) clauses 3.1 (Substantiation) and 7.1 (Truthfulness).
11. Upheld
We considered that the claim that Optical Express carried out the largest number of procedures every week in the UK was a claim capable of objective substantiation with robust and recent market share data.
We noted that Optical Express claimed to have treated over 75,000 eyes in Europe in 2010 and over 62,000 eyes in the UK in 2010 and had provided evidence to support those figures. We noted that Optical Express had, using the figures supplied in their response to point 5, extrapolated what they believed were realistic weekly treatment rates for their competitors. However, for the reasons given in point 5, we did not consider that data was sufficient to substantiate a market share claim. Because we had not seen robust, comparative evidence that Optical Express carried out the largest number of procedures every week in the UK, we concluded that the claim was misleading.
On this point the ad breached CAP Code (Edition 11) clauses 3.1 (Substantiation), 7.1 (Truthfulness) and 18.1 and 18.3 (Comparisons with identified competitors and/or their products).
12. Upheld
We considered that the claim that Optical Express were Europe’s number one provider of laser eye surgery was capable of objective substantiation in the form of robust, comparative data that showed that Optical Express had the largest market share in Europe.
We noted the substantiation document provided by Optical Express and noted that it contained a variety of general information about their business. However, we noted that it did not contain any European market share data for Optical Express or their competitors. We also noted Optical Express’s reference to the figures concerning the number of procedures performed, but we did not consider that they were sufficient to support a market share claim for the reasons given in point 5. Because we had not seen robust, comparative evidence that Optical Express had the largest market share of any provider in Europe, we concluded that the claim was misleading.
On this point the ad breached CAP Code (Edition 11) clauses 3.1 (Substantiation), 7.1 (Truthfulness) and 18.1 and 18.3 (Comparisons with identified competitors and/or their products).
13. Upheld
While we understood that all-laser LASIK of the type offered by Optical Express had been approved by NASA, we considered that the claim “The same laser technology approved to treat NASA astronauts available in every clinic”, in the context of the table in the ad, would be understood by readers to mean that Optical Express were the only eye laser surgery provider to offer that technology in every clinic.
We noted the articles provided by Optical Express. However, we noted those articles related to NASA’s use of all-laser LASIK in general and did not show that Optical Express were the only provider to offer all-laser LASIK in every clinic, and we therefore concluded that the claim was misleading.
On this point the ad breached CAP Code (Edition 11) clauses 3.1 (Substantiation), 7.1 (Truthfulness) and 18.1 and 18.3 (Comparisons with identified competitors and/or their products).
14. Not upheld
We noted that Optical Express had provided an e-mail from AMO, the manufacturers of the iFS 150, which included an assurance that Optical Express were the only corporate laser vision correction provider in the UK that had that technology in every clinic. We therefore considered that the claim had been substantiated and was not misleading.
On this point we investigated the ad under CAP Code (Edition 11) clauses 3.1 (Substantiation), 7.1 (Truthfulness) and 18.1 and 18.3 (Comparisons with identified competitors and/or their products) but did not find it in breach.
15. Not upheld
We considered that the claim "Free, no obligation consultation" in the context of the table in the ad would be interpreted by readers to mean that Optical Express offered a free consultation and that other providers did not.
We noted that the documentation provided by Optical Express showed that, although the consultation was free, Ultralase customers were required to give credit or debit card details at the time of booking the consultation, in order that a non-attendance fee could be deducted if necessary, and that Optimax customers were required to pay a deposit to secure appointments in some clinics. We considered that by giving credit or debit card details or making a deposit, customers were obligated to those providers, and that a fee was potentially payable by the customer. We understood that Optical Express did not charge a fee for cancellation or non-attendance or request a deposit, and we therefore concluded that the claim that they were the only provider to offer a “free, no obligation consultation” was not misleading.
On this point we investigated the ad under CAP Code (Edition 11) clauses 3.1 (Substantiation), 7.1 (Truthfulness) and 18.1 and 18.3 (Comparisons with identified competitors and/or their products) but did not find it in breach.
16.,17.,19.,& 20. Upheld
The ASA considered that readers would interpret the claims "Free comprehensive aftercare", "Interest free credit available", "Founding member of the Eye Laser Association" and "Donate unwanted glasses to the developing world", in the context of the table in the ad, to mean that Optical Express offered those facilities and services and that no other provider did so. Although we welcomed Optical Express’s acknowledgement that the presentation of the claims in the table was ambiguous, because they could not substantiate that those services were unique to them, we concluded that the claims were misleading.
On these points the ad breached CAP Code (Edition 11) clauses 3.1 (Substantiation), 7.1 (Truthfulness) and 18.1 and 18.3 (Comparisons with identified competitors and/or their products).
18. Upheld
We considered that readers would interpret the claim “Offer alternative solutions including Intraocular lens treatment” in the context of the table in the ad to mean that only Optical Express and no other provider offered alternatives to laser eye surgery. We noted that Optical Express had submitted a page from an Optimax brochure which stated that Optimax did not offer any other services other than laser eye surgery. However, we also understood that Optimax were not Optical Express’s only competitor and, in the absence of evidence that showed that their other competitors did not offer alternatives to laser eye surgery, we concluded that the claim had not been substantiated and was misleading.
On this point the ad breached CAP Code (Edition 11) clauses 3.1 (Substantiation), 7.1 (Truthfulness) and 18.1 and 18.3 (Comparisons with identified competitors and/or their products).
21. Upheld
We noted the graph supplied by Optical Express. However, we also noted that we had not seen details of the methodology of the associated survey. Notwithstanding that, we noted that the 98% claim was based on answers given by respondents one day after surgery. We also noted that the number of patients who would recommend Optical Express decreased when the same question was asked one week, one month and three months after surgery. We therefore considered that details about the response time should have been included in the ad, in order to make clear for consumers the basis on which the “98%” claim was made.
Moreover, we considered that, in the context of the table, consumers could understand the claim to mean that Optical Express were the only provider to be recommended by over 98% of their customers. We noted that we had not seen evidence that other providers were not recommended by over 98% of their patients. Because of that, and because the basis of the claim was not made clear in the ad, we concluded that the claim was misleading.
On this point the ad breached CAP Code (Edition 11) clauses 3.1 (Substantiation), 7.1 (Truthfulness) and 18.1 and 18.3 (Comparisons with identified competitors and/or their products).
22. Upheld
We noted the spreadsheet provided by Optical Express. Although we noted that that spreadsheet listed over 700,000 operations, we also noted that it related to Optical Express’s business only and did not show how many procedures had been carried out by surgeons in competing clinics.
Because we had not seen evidence that Optical Express were the only provider whose surgeons had performed over 700,000 procedures, we concluded that the claim was misleading.
On this point the ad breached CAP Code (Edition 11) clauses 3.1 (Substantiation), 7.1 (Truthfulness) and 18.1 and 18.3 (Comparisons with identified competitors and/or their products).
23. Upheld
We considered that readers would interpret the claim “Most advanced Wavefront and Intralase technology used exclusively in every clinic” in the context of the table in the ad to mean that Optical Express had the most advanced technologies in every clinic and that other providers did not.
We accepted, for the reasons given in points 1 and 14, that Optical Express had the most advanced Intralase (iFS 150) technology in every clinic. However, we considered, for the reasons given in point 1, that Optical Express had not substantiated the claim that the Wavefront (VISX) technology they used for cornea reshaping was the most advanced. Because of that, and because we had not seen evidence that other providers did not use the latest Wavefront technology in every clinic, we concluded that the claim was misleading.
On this point the ad breached CAP Code (Edition 11) clauses 3.1 (Substantiation), 7.1 (Truthfulness) and 18.1 and 18.3 (Comparisons with identified competitors and/or their products).
24. Upheld
We considered that readers would understand the statement by Padraig Harrington, “I want to be treated by the best and that’s Optical Express”, as an endorsement of Optical Express’ service, of which he had experience. We understood, however, that although Padraig Harrington had undergone laser eye surgery, it had not been performed by Optical Express. We therefore concluded that the testimonial was misleading.
On this point the ad breached CAP Code (Edition 11) clauses 3.1 (Substantiation), 7.1 (Truthfulness) and 14.3 (Testimonials and endorsements).
25. Upheld
We noted that the TV ad did not contain a specific statement that Padraig Harrington had had laser eye surgery, or that he had had laser eye surgery at Optical Express. However, we considered that the claims “And of course it’s important to have great vision ... My advice? Visit Optical Express, Europe’s number one provider of laser eye surgery” and “It could help your game too” was likely to be interpreted by viewers as a claim that Mr Harrington had experience of the benefits of laser eye surgery at Optical Express. Because we considered that the ad implied that Mr Harrington had had laser eye surgery at Optical Express, and because we understood that was not the case, we concluded that the ad was misleading.
On this point ad (b) breached CAP (Broadcast) TV Advertising Standards Code rules 5.1.1 and 5.1.3 (Misleading advertising).
