ASA Adjudication on Anesis Spa
Anesis Spa
14 The Pavement
Clapham Common
London
SW4 0HY
Date:
11 July 2012
Media:
Internet (on own site)
Sector:
Health and beauty
Number of complaints:
1
Complaint Ref:
A12-193680
Background
Summary of Council decision:
Two issues were investigated, both of which were Upheld.
Ad
The website www.anesis.co.uk, which promoted spa treatments, included a page that was headlined "Facial Rejuvenation Clinic - Botox Treatments". Further text stated "Available now at our Clapham Branch in London. Dr. Natalia (Natty) Burgess BDS is a qualified Dental Surgeon … Natty is specially qualified in facial injection rejuvenation treatments and loves seeing the renewed confidence that people gain from the results. Natty says 'Facial injection rejuvenation treatment is not about 'stopping facial expression' or 'freezing the face' … The goal is to gently slow down and/or reverse much of the visual impact of wrinkles appearing on the face over a number of years, and can offer a long term solution to these issues. When applied with the care and attention of an expert, patients will enjoy a greatly rejuvenated confidence both privately, and in their public appearance'". The ad gave details of the types of wrinkles that could be treated with Botox: frown wrinkles, forehead wrinkles and eye wrinkles. The cost of treating one, two or three areas was stated. The ad also included a video, which showed Dr Burgess preparing a patient for the treatment. The patient was also shown discussing the treatment afterwards.
Issue
The complainant challenged whether the ad was irresponsible, because it:
1. advertised a prescription-only medicine (POM) to the public; and
2. used a health professional to endorse a medicine.
CAP Code (Edition 12)
Response
1. & 2. Anesis Spa said they were willing to take advice on how to amend the website. They said an associate, who they worked with in relation to Botox, had a prescription licence.
Assessment
1. Upheld
The ASA acknowledged Anesis Spa were willing to amend their advertising. We noted, however, that they offered Botox treatments and that the claims in the ad included references to the benefits of Botox, such as "Facial Rejuvenation …", "… the renewed confidence that people gain from the results" and "… The goal is to gently slow down and/or reverse much of the visual impact of wrinkles appearing on the face over a number of years, and can offer a long term solution to these issues … patients will enjoy a greatly rejuvenated confidence both privately, and in their public appearance'", which we considered promoted the use of Botox to the public.
We considered that it was acceptable for a website to refer to the POM as a treatment option, presented in the context of the promotion of a consultation where a range of therapeutic options would be discussed, provided the focus was on the promotion of the consultation rather than any associated POM. We considered, however, that those, and other claims in the ad, went beyond balanced and factual references to the POM as a treatment option, presented in the context of the promotion of a consultation where a range of therapeutic options would be discussed. Because it promoted the use of a POM to the public, we concluded that the ad breached the Code.
On this point, the ad breached CAP (Edition 12) rule 12.12 (Medicines).
2. Upheld
We noted the ad included quotations from a qualified dental surgeon, whose professional credentials were detailed and who was pictured and also appeared in the video on the website. We noted that text also included "Natty is specially qualified in facial injection rejuvenation treatments and loves seeing the renewed confidence that people gain from the results. Natty says 'Facial injection rejuvenation treatment is not about 'stopping facial expression' or 'freezing the face' … The goal is to gently slow down and/or reverse much of the visual impact of wrinkles appearing on the face over a number of years, and can offer a long term solution to these issues. When applied with the care and attention of an expert, patients will enjoy a greatly rejuvenated confidence both privately, and in their public appearance'". We noted that Botox was a POM and considered the overall impression of the ad was such that it was likely to be interpreted as suggesting a qualified dental professional endorsed treatment using the POM. We therefore concluded that the ad breached the Code.
On this point, the ad breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 1.3 (Responsible advertising) and 12.18 (Medicines).
Action
The ad must not appear again in its current form. We told Anesis Spa to ensure they did not advertise POMs to the public in future. We also told them to ensure future advertising did not use health professionals to endorse medicines.
