Ad description
Claims in an internet display ad, viewed on 31 October 2011, promoted an emollient cream range. Text stated "THE ONLY Total Emollient Therapy range without sodium lauryl sulphate (sls)".
Issue
Alliance Pharmaceuticals challenged whether the claim "THE ONLY Total Emollient Therapy range without sodium lauryl sulphate (sls)" was misleading and could be substantiated.
Response
Crawford Healthcare Ltd (Crawford Healthcare) said they considered their five QV emollient variants to comprise a "total emollient therapy", because their products covered the complete needs for a patient with compromised skin hydration. They said that, as pharmaceutical markets grew, mature definitions constantly developed and evolved, stating that the term "complete emollient therapy" was a relatively new term. Crawford Healthcare said they believed their range was broader, with more specific product variants than any other in the UK, and said no product in their range contained sls. They said they therefore believed it was appropriate to state "THE ONLY Total Emollient Therapy range without sodium lauryl sulphate (sls)".
Assessment
Upheld
The ASA noted that Crawford Healthcare considered their product range was a "total emollient therapy" range rather than a "complete emollient therapy" range because they believed their range was broader with more product variants. However, we considered that in the context of the ad, most readers would expect the terms to be interchangeable, because both definitions referred to a full range of products that could be used to provide a patient's treatment. Because we understood that Crawford Healthcare was not the only provider who had a full range of emollient therapy products without sls, we considered the claim had not been substantiated, and concluded it was misleading.
The ad breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules
3.1
3.1
Marketing communications must not materially mislead or be likely to do so.
(Misleading advertising),
3.7
3.7
Before distributing or submitting a marketing communication for publication, marketers must hold documentary evidence to prove claims that consumers are likely to regard as objective and that are capable of objective substantiation. The ASA may regard claims as misleading in the absence of adequate substantiation.
(Substantiation),
3.38
3.38
Marketing communications that include a comparison with an unidentifiable competitor must not mislead, or be likely to mislead, the consumer. The elements of the comparison must not be selected to give the marketer an unrepresentative advantage.
(Other comparisons) and
12.1
12.1
Objective claims must be backed by evidence, if relevant consisting of trials conducted on people. Substantiation will be assessed on the basis of the available scientific knowledge.
Medicinal or medical claims and indications may be made for a medicinal product that is licensed by the MHRA, VMD or under the auspices of the EMA, or for a CE-marked medical device. A medicinal claim is a claim that a product or its constituent(s) can be used with a view to making a medical diagnosis or can treat or prevent disease, including an injury, ailment or adverse condition, whether of body or mind, in human beings.
Secondary medicinal claims made for cosmetic products as defined in the appropriate European legislation must be backed by evidence. These are limited to any preventative action of the product and may not include claims to treat disease.
(Medicines, medical devices, health-related products and beauty products).
Action
The ad must not appear in its current form again. We told Crawford Healthcare not to claim they were the only emollient range without sls.
