ASA Adjudication on Johnson & Johnson Ltd

Ad

A national press ad, for 'RoC CompleteLift' face cream. The ad showed a woman holding a tape measure and a pot of 'ROC CompleteLift' by the side of her face. Text next to the tape measure stated "MEASURABLE LIFT* IN JUST 8 WEEKS". Text underneath stated "LIFTING INNOVATION - CompleteLift contains patented THPE** which re-tightens and firms the facial contours by contracting skin cells, so that skin looks and feels lifted and firmer. Clinically proven*** to work in just 8 weeks of use. Results: A measurable lift to rediscover a younger-looking you." The footnote stated "*CompleteLift has been developed to make skin feel firmer and reduce the appearance of wrinkles. It has not been proven to have a physical lift effect. **Tetrahydroxypropyl Ethylenediamine. ***Clinical study, 41 women, 8 weeks of use".

Issue

1. Two complainants challenged whether the claims "MEASURABLE LIFT* IN JUST 8 WEEKS" and "LIFTING INNOVATION ... Results: A measurable lift ..." were misleading and could be substantiated, because they believed they were contradicted by the footnote.

The ASA challenged whether:

2. the claims "MEASURABLE LIFT* IN JUST 8 WEEKS" and "Clinically proven** to work in just 8 weeks of use" were misleading and could be substantiated, because they implied that the product had a cumulative and lasting effect;

3. the claim "Clinically proven** to work ..." was misleading and could be substantiated; and

4. the claim "CompleteLift contains patented THPE which re-tightens and firms the facial contours by contracting skin cells" was misleading and could be substantiated.

CAP Code (Edition 11)

Response

1., 2. & 3. Johnson & Johnson (J&J) said the claims were supported by a clinical study and confirmed by consumer perception data. They said the wording of the claims was intended to communicate the visible but temporary cosmetic lifting effect of the product. They argued that the claims were not intended to suggest a permanent physical lift and that was why they had included the footnote "CompleteLift has been developed to make skin feel firmer and reduce the appearance of wrinkles. It has not been proven to have a physical lift effect".

They sent an eight-week double-blind, randomized placebo-controlled clinical study that had been performed on 41 women aged between 45 and 65 years. In the study, the products were applied split-face once a day in the morning for eight weeks and clinical grading measures were carried out before application and after eight weeks of application. J&J said an experienced expert grader evaluated the cosmetic lifting benefits of the formulas (both product and placebo) by assessing the sagging of the facial contours of the volunteers included in the study at baseline and after eight weeks of product usage using a 12-cm length semi-structured visual analogic scale. They said the left limit of the scale corresponded to "very pronounced sagging" and the right limit to "No sagging at all". They argued that the results showed that CompleteLift showed a measurable lifting effect by clinical assessment.

J&J said they had also undertaken consumer perception testing on 204 women aged between 35 and 65 years who had applied the product over a four-week period and completed a full questionnaire at the end of the trial. They said the results showed that 93% of the women were satisfied by the cosmetic lifting action it provided.

J&J said CompleteLift was a new product in the RoC range and was based on a cosmetic lifting technology, Tetrahydroxypropyl Ethylenediamine (THPE), which had been introduced for the first time into a RoC cosmetic lifting range, with the aim of firming the skin. They said THPE was patented by J&J for enhancing the firmness of the skin and was unique to RoC. They argued that, because the ingredient was new to the RoC range and was patented by J&J, it could be considered as a lifting innovation and the claim "lifting innovation" was therefore supported.

J&J said CompleteLift had been developed to reduce the appearance of sagging skin by making the skin feel and look firmer and by reducing the appearance of wrinkles. They reiterated their argument that the product had been proven to provide a temporary measurable lifting effect on sagging skin. They asserted, however, that CompleteLift was a cosmetic product and did not have or claim a permanent physical lift effect.

J&J argued that most consumers understood "physical lift" to refer to a permanent, surgical-like effect. They asserted that wording from both the footnote and from the body text of the ad, clearly stated that the "measurable lift" claimed for the product related to the skin looking and feeling lifted and firmer, i.e. a temporary rather than permanent effect. They argued that the footnote did not contradict the claims in the body copy and was in the spirit of previous ASA guidance to ensure consumers were not misled.

J&J argued that the evidence they had referred to substantiated the claims.  They argued that the ad did not imply a long-lasting or persistent effect, but the results of their trial showed daily use of the product was required to achieve optimal results and the claimed effects. They argued that the ad was not misleading and did not imply the effects would continue or remain after stopping application.

J&J said they had used the tape measure as a creative way to reflect the "measurable lift" that they argued was proven by clinical assessment and supported by consumer perception. They asserted that the deployment of visual metaphors to help illustrate the product benefit was a well-used device in skincare advertising and was therefore well-understood by the target consumer. They believed it was obvious the tape measure did not represent the actual difference the product made but acted as a visual device to dramatise the fact that a difference could be measured, not just asserted.

4. J&J said THPE had been proven to have a firming action through both in vitro and in vivo testing. They said in vitro testing showed that THPE induced a rapid, concentrated and time-dependant keratinocyte contraction. They said the CompleteLift marketed formula 348-148 contained 2.5% THPE. They sent trials that they argued showed that patented THPE re-tightened and firmed the skin by contracting epidermal skin cells and improved the skin firmness.

Assessment

The ASA noted J&J's response and the evidence they had provided. We sent the evidence to an expert who advised that, in his opinion, the evidence was not sufficiently robust to support the efficacy of CompleteLift. He believed there were a number of problems with the eight-week trial on 41 women. There were omissions in methodology, such as the absence of any objective measure of any of the standards used, and no photography, no form of physical linear measure were used and no objective data were recorded. He also expressed concern that only one grader was used and that the grader was a J&J employee, which he believed caused a potential conflict of interest.  

The expert also believed the evidence of clinical testing on THPE was not sufficiently robust to support the advertised claims. He said, for example, there was no detailed methodology or results and the criteria for accepting or rejecting subjects, the photographic methods and the blinding process of the graders were not described.

1. & 2. Upheld

We noted J&J believed readers would understand that the product produced only a temporary effect to make the skin look and feel lifted and firmer.  We considered, however, that readers were likely to understand from the claims "MEASURABLE LIFT* IN JUST 8 WEEKS" and "LIFTING INNOVATION ... Results: A measurable lift ..." in the body copy that the product had a significant cumulative and lasting lifting effect on the skin.  We noted the small-print made clear that the product had not been proven to have a physical lifting effect, but we did not agree that readers would infer from that that it had a temporary effect; instead, we thought it likely they would interpret "physical" as relating to the physical properties of the skin and would be confused by this apparently contradictory footnote given their likely understanding of the more prominent claims in the ad.

We noted the ASA had not yet seen evidence that cosmetic creams could have a cumulative or lasting lifting effect on normal skin and considered that high level, product-specific evidence was required to support such a claim.   We noted the expert's view that there were several problems with the evidence sent by J&J.  We were concerned at the problems identified by the expert and the lack of detailed methodology for the evidence sent by J&J and considered that the evidence was not sufficiently robust to support the implication that the product delivered a significant cumulative and lasting lifting effect.

On points 1 & 2, the ad breached CAP Code clauses 3.1 (Substantiation), 7.1 (Truthfulness), 50.1 and 50.7 (Health & beauty products and therapies - General).

3. Upheld

We considered that, in the context of the ad, the claim "Clinically proven** to work ..." implied that the product was clinically proven to deliver a cumulative and lasting lifting effect on the skin.  We noted the claim was based on the eight week study on 41 women.  We also noted the expert's view that there were problems with the methodology of that study and his belief that it was not robust enough to substantiate the efficacy of the product.  Because we had not seen robust clinical evidence to show that CompleteLift was proven to  deliver a cumulative and lasting lifting effect as implied by the ad, the claim was misleading.   

On this point, the ad breached CAP Code clauses 3.1 (Substantiation), 7.1 (Truthfulness), 50.1 and 50.7 (Health & beauty products and therapies - General).

4. Upheld

We noted our expert's advice that the clinical formulation of the product in the THPE test was not given and the testing was not product-specific. We considered that, because our expert had identified problems with the evidence, it was not sufficient to show that the THPE in the advertised product could re-tighten and firm the facial contours by contracting skin cells as claimed.  We concluded that the claim was misleading.

On this point, the ad breached CAP Code clauses 3.1 (Substantiation), 7.1 (Truthfulness), 50.1 and 50.7 (Health & beauty products and therapies - General).

Action

The ad must not appear again in its current form. We advised J&J to seek advice from the CAP Copy Advice team before advertising again.

Adjudication of the ASA Council (Non-broadcast)