Upheld

The ASA noted that Finasteride and Minoxidil were licensed treatments for hair loss and that clinical trials had demonstrated both to be effective in improving hair growth, with the best effects obtained if they were used at the earliest possible stage of hair loss. We noted that a previous ASA adjudication, Health Innovations, published in January 2012, had found that the LaserComb had been clinically proven to promote hair growth but that the evidence did not suggest that the improvement was significant to the user in those cases. We considered that the wording of the Belgravia Centre's claims, "the primary hair loss treatments that form the core of most of Belgravia's hair loss treatment programmes are medically proven to prevent hair loss and regrow hair and most men who use our treatment combinations will achieve this goal", went beyond the claims the ASA had previously accepted and suggested that hair loss would be prevented and hair would regrow in most men if they used Belgravia's programmes. We considered the Belgravia Centre therefore needed to hold evidence for that. Furthermore, while we accepted that Finasteride and Minoxidil were effective treatments for hair loss, we considered that advertisers needed to hold additional evidence if they wanted to claim that effective treatment was achieved through their programmes rather than the use of Finasteride or Minoxidil alone. We considered that the references to "the primary hair loss treatments that form the core of most of Belgravia's hair loss treatment programmes" and "our treatment combinations" suggested that Belgravia could use treatments or methods in addition to the authorised treatments of Finasteride or Minoxidil. Because Belgravia had not supplied evidence that hair loss would be prevented and hair would regrow in most men if they used their treatment programmes, or evidence for efficacy claims for treatments or methods in addition to Finasteride or Minoxidil, we concluded that the Belgravia Centre had not substantiated the claim and that it was misleading.

The claim breached CAP Code (Edition 12) Code rules 3.1 (Misleading advertising), 3.7 (Substantiation), 3.11 (Exaggeration), 12.1 (Medicines, medical devices, health-related products and beauty products) and 12.23 (Hair and scalp).