1. Upheld

The ASA noted the study provided by Wowcher only highlighted reductions in the fat layer of the test subjects up to six months after treatment and we considered that there was no evidence in the study which indicated that Cryolipolysis was a "permanent fat-reducing treatment" or that it could offer "Permanent results". We understood the treatment would not prevent new fat cells from forming in the same area and we therefore concluded that the claims were misleading.

On this point, the claims breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1 (Misleading advertising), 3.7 (Substantiation) and 12.1 (Medicines, medical devices, health-related products and beauty products).

2. Upheld

We noted the study provided by Wowcher showed the effects of the treatment on ten subjects but also noted that four of these did not complete the six-month follow-up evaluation. We noted that of the remaining six subjects, two achieved fat loss of around 30% and one achieved weight loss of 37.5%. We also noted that one achieved weight loss of just 10.7%. However, because of the low number of test subjects, we did not consider that the study was robust enough to support the claim "Up to 30% fat loss". We also considered that this claim could have been interpreted as a claim about overall body fat loss and we did not consider the ad made it clear that the claim related only to the area being treated. We therefore concluded that the claim was misleading and had not been substantiated.

On this point, the claim breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1 (Misleading advertising) and 3.7 (Substantiation).

3. Upheld

We understood that the treatment was applied by coating "love handle" tissue in a proprietary coupling gel and drawing it into an applicator using a mild vacuum, which positioned the tissue between two cooling panels and held it in place for the duration of the treatment. We therefore understood that cryolipolysis was a superficial treatment which did not puncture or break the skin and we considered that it was therefore reasonable to describe it as non-invasive.

However, we noted that the CAP Code required advertisers to hold proof before claiming that a product or therapy was absolutely safe and we considered that Wowcher therefore needed to demonstrate with robust scientific evidence that cryolipolysis would be safe for all users. We noted the study provided by Wowcher, but we understood that the study was designed to investigate the efficacy rather than the safety of the therapy. We also noted that a number of groups had been excluded from the trial, including those who had medical conditions which made them averse to low temperatures and those where their participation could have posed, what the study described as, an "unacceptable risk to the subject".

Because we had not seen evidence that cryolipolysis was "totally safe" we therefore concluded that the claim was misleading.

On this point, the claim breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 12.3 and 12.9 (Medicines, medical devices, health-related products and beauty products).