Ad description
An ad for GP consultation and prescription services on the Doctor Fox website www.doctorfox.co.uk. A logo, shown at the top of the ad, contained text that stated "Dr Fox Online Doctor and Pharmacy". Next to the logo featured a checklist that stated "Regulated by the CQC. GPhC NHS Pharmacy. British GMC doctors". The top of the ad also displayed a green "Registered Pharmacy" logo and a registration number.
Text further down on the page stated "Online Doctor & Pharmacy ... ONLINE DOCTORS SERVICE: LOW COST PRESCRIPTION MEDICINE FROM ONLINE PHARMACY ... Dr Fox undertakes consultations online & supplies prescription medication posted direct to you. UK GMC registered doctors issue the prescriptions. Genuine medicine is supplied from an NHS online pharmacy (delivery within EU). The service is confidential, safe and fully regulated in the UK."
Issue
The complainant, who understood that the prescriptions issued by the advertiser were dispensed by the a third-party pharmacy, challenged whether the claims "Online Doctor and Pharmacy" and "GPhC NHS pharmacy" and the use of the "Registered Pharmacy" logo were misleading and could be substantiated because they believed the ad implied that the advertiser was a registered pharmacy.
Response
Index Medical Ltd said that Doctorfox.co.uk was a registered pharmacy website and provided details of registration on the General Pharmaceutical Council (GPhC) website. They further stated that the services delivered through the Dr Fox website were jointly registered with the Care Quality Commission.
They said that the medical consultation and pharmacy services were jointly provided through the Dr Fox website as an integrated service. Index Medical stated that this joint provision of services was described on the page that was linked to text on the home page: "The service is confidential, safe and fully regulated in the UK [link]".
They further stated that detailed information about the consultation, the prescribing element and the dispensing element of the service would be repeated during the online 'ordering process' and in e-mails sent to patients when doctors had approved or declined prescriptions and when prescriptions had been dispensed and dispatched.
Index Medical asserted that only information present on prescriptions would be exchanged between doctors and pharmacists as this would be standard practice amongst UK healthcare services where doctors would prescribe and pharmacists would dispense according to the prescription.
They stated that the website of the associate pharmacy contained hyperlinks to the Dr Fox website, but the pharmacy was not involved in the provision of the services of Dr Fox.
Assessment
Not upheld
The ASA understood that the use of the term 'pharmacy' was restricted under the Medicines Act 1968 and that the display of the Internet Pharmacy logo was regulated by the GPhC. We noted that both the Dr Fox website and its associated pharmacy were registered pharmacies and as such, they were authorised to display the Internet Pharmacy logo and use the term 'pharmacy'.
We noted that the Dr Fox home page did not contain information that specified that any prescription issued following online consultation would be dispensed by a third- party associate pharmacy. However, we noted that the prescription process was described in a prominent manner further down the home page, which stated "The online prescriptions are fulfilled by an NHS online pharmacy and medicine sent via recorded delivery ...". We considered that consumers would interpret this to mean that the prescriptions would be dispensed by a separate NHS online pharmacy.
We noted that there were a number of links at the top of the home page that linked to pages titled 'Regulation', 'About Us' and 'Contact Us' and that these pages contained information about the third-party associate pharmacy, such as their GPhC registration number, address and the identity of the superintendent pharmacist. We also noted that the link titled 'How it Works' immediately below the Dr Fox logo at the top of the home page linked to a page of the same title that stated "The medicine is dispensed and posted from a separate NHS pharmacy by recorded delivery".
We acknowledged the complainant's concerns about consumers' personal details being accessed by a third party in this instance. However, when viewing the claims in the context of the ad as a whole, we considered the nature of the services provided by the advertiser was clearly presented and indicated on the website as jointly provided by doctors on the Dr Fox website and the associate pharmacy. We noted that this information would also be repeated during the online order process and in e-mails sent to consumers after the consultation had taken place. We also noted that the advertiser's terms and conditions stated "You direct private prescriptions issued in your name from the doctorfox.co.uk website to be sent electronically on your behalf to a registered UK pharmacy for a pharmacist to dispense the medication specified ...". We were satisfied that this made clear the nature of the information that would be passed on to the associate pharmacy after the prescription had been issued.
On the basis that we considered that information regarding the extent of the services provided by the advertiser and their associate pharmacy was clearly stated and accessible on the advertiser's website, we concluded that the claims in the ad were not misleading and could be substantiated.
The ad did not breach CAP Code (Edition 12) rules
3.1
3.1
Marketing communications must not materially mislead or be likely to do so.
3.3
3.3
Marketing communications must not mislead the consumer by omitting material information. They must not mislead by hiding material information or presenting it in an unclear, unintelligible, ambiguous or untimely manner.
Material information is information that the consumer needs to make informed decisions in relation to a product. Whether the omission or presentation of material information is likely to mislead the consumer depends on the context, the medium and, if the medium of the marketing communication is constrained by time or space, the measures that the marketer takes to make that information available to the consumer by other means.
(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) and
3.50
3.50
Marketing communications must not display a trust mark, quality mark or equivalent without the necessary authorisation. Marketing communications must not claim that the marketer (or any other entity referred to), the marketing communication or the advertised product has been approved, endorsed or authorised by any public or other body if it has not or without complying with the terms of the approval, endorsement or authorisation.
(Endorsements and Testimonials).
Action
No further action necessary.
