Background
Summary of Council decision:
Four issues were investigated, all of which were Upheld.
Ad description
A website, www.universalcontourwrap.com, for a body wrap treatment included text on the home page that stated prominently "lose at least 6" guaranteed or pay nothing". Further text stated "Universal Contour Wrap is the world's only proven body wrap brand to guarantee instant inch loss. What's more, you are guaranteed to maintain your inch loss for a minimum of 30 days or have another treatment absolutely free".
Another page on the website, headed "The Body Wrap" also referred to guaranteed loss of six inches and repeated the further text from the home page. Text also stated "If you're looking to lose a few extra inches you could always join a gym or attempt the latest diet, but if you want instant results look no further than the Classic treatment from Universal Contour Wrap ... an average loss of between 10-14 inches from just one body wrap ... Removes harmful toxins from the body ... A unique blend of mineral rich clay and specialist body wrapping techniques help cleanse and detoxify your body while actively compressing the soft fatty tissues, to create instant and lasting inch loss ... the detoxification and tightening process can continue for three to four days, giving further inch loss ... the average overall loss is around twenty-five inches after just three treatments. It's actually quite normal for women to come down a complete dress size".
Issue
The complainant challenged whether the references to:
1. "proven", "guaranteed" inch loss;
2. specific expected inch loss amounts; and
3. detoxifying effects
were misleading and could be substantiated.
4. The ASA challenged whether the references to specific expected inch loss amounts breached the Code by implying that precise weight loss could be achieved.
Response
1. Totally UK Ltd t/a Universal Contour Wrap stated that "proven" referred to a study of the effects of the wrap conducted by the University of Westminster in 2008, which they said showed unequivocally that instant inch loss was achieved in all 35 of the test subjects. They provided a copy of the study report. The report explained that 35 women with BMIs ranging from 20 to above 30 were given the wrap treatment, with before and after measurements taken of the girth of specific sites. Eight measurements were taken from the limbs and trunks of all subjects, with a subset of 12 subjects having measurements taken from an additional 8 sites according to the usual salon measurement method, and skinfold measures of subcutaneous fat were also taken. The results stated that across all volunteers the mean change in total girth was 8.5 cm, and 11.5 cm for the 16-measurement subset, and that the skinfold measurements had also decreased. The study also stated that the range of losses of girth in those measured at 16 sites was 7.0 cm to 16.8 cm, and that the largest summed girth reduction (16.0 cm or 6.4 inches) was observed in a subject with a BMI of 35.1 who had been measured at 16 sites. The study also described seven subjects being given follow-up tests one month after the initial procedure, with the results demonstrating that loss of girth was relatively constant but skinfold measurements returned to pre-procedure readings. The study concluded that the application of the wrap produced consistent inch loss immediately after a one-hour application of the wrap, the effect being more pronounced in obese subjects, and that these results were statistically significant. It also stated that data regarding the maintenance of this inch loss at one month was equivocal in terms of the effects, and noted that the return of skinfold measurements to pre-trial readings suggested strongly that weight loss was responsible for the apparent maintenance of inch loss at one month, positing that this could be because the intervention as a whole raised awareness of body image diet and lifestyle.
Universal Contour Wrap stated that the word "guaranteed" referred to their money-back guarantee, rather than any promise of inch loss, and that this guarantee was explained on the website and in other marketing material. They explained that the guarantee offered customers their money back if they did not lose a total of six inches as a result of the first treatment, and that there was an additional guarantee giving customers a free treatment if the inch loss was not maintained for at least 30 days. They stated that it was impossible to guarantee that a client would lose six inches and that, while they believe in almost all cases it would be a fair reflection of the treatment, every person was different.
2. Universal Contour Wrap stated that they had wrapped over five million clients over a period of nearly 25 years, and that they were very confident in their claims for inch loss. They said that their research over this period had been wrapping their clients and taking on board their feedback, and that their evidence was in the 1000 salons across the UK that promoted their products and services, as well as those across the world. Universal Contour Wrap said that all of their recently-trained therapists were asked to submit their first four wrap records to ensure that they were capable of carrying out the procedure, and provided us with 27 of these records. All but three treatments from these records were recorded as resulting in at least six inches in girth reduction.
3. Universal Contour Wrap stated that the clay solution used in the wrap consisted largely of Bentonite, and asserted that this was a well-known substance for 'detoxifying' that had been used and studied by thousands of companies for this purpose. They provided links to a literature review on the subject by the International Academy of Oral Medicine and Toxicology, articles from four natural health websites and a Wikipedia page that noted 'medicinal clay' had been used in medical bandages.
4. Universal Contour Wrap emphasised that their product was not a weight loss product, and stated that the ad did not mention weight loss. They stated that their product offered customers the ability to lose centimetres/inches through detoxification and body shaping. They stated that the reference to losing six inches of girth ”guaranteed” was not a claim that consumers would lose a precise amount of weight in a certain period, but that they would not pay anything if they did not lose six inches from their first treatment and would receive a free treatment if this was not maintained for 30 days.
Assessment
1. Upheld
The ASA acknowledged that body wraps could have a temporary effect on weight and size through the expulsion of water from the body, and that marketers might therefore make claims for temporary weight loss or inch loss. However, we understood from the ad that the product was specifically marketed as an alternative to water loss treatments and instead claimed to result in lasting “inch loss” through compression of fatty tissues and detoxifying effects.
We acknowledged the trial report provided by Universal Contour Wrap, and their assertion that this demonstrated that use of the product resulted in inch loss. We noted that the trial concluded that the wrap could provide instant reduction of girth, with a mean reduction of 8.5 cm over eight measurement sites and 11.5 cm over 16 measurement sites. However, we also noted that the sample of 35 women was very small, with the BMI subsets even more so, and that in the 16-measurement group the range of inch loss results (7 cm to 16.8 cm) varied widely. In addition, we noted that the study did not conclude that the sustained inch loss over 30 days was a result of the treatment alone; also it speculated about additional psychological factors. Moreover, we noted that even in the subset who had 16 measurements taken the average inch loss was 11.5 cm, which we considered was significantly less than the 6 inches (15 cm) referred to in the ad. Although we acknowledged the generally positive results of the trial, we considered that the size of the data pool and high variability of results in this single study meant it was insufficiently robust to substantiate the claim that the instant “inch loss” was "proven".
We noted Universal Contour Wrap’s explanation that they did not guarantee a loss of six inches, but offered a money-back guarantee if this level was not achieved. However, we noted that the claim "lose at least 6" guaranteed or pay nothing" described the “inch loss” itself as guaranteed with the payment aspect a secondary consideration. We considered that the presentation of the money-back guarantee was ambiguous and that in the context of the page consumers were likely to interpret it as a claim that they were guaranteed to lose six inches, rather than being guaranteed their money back if they did not achieve this minimum inch loss. We understood Universal Contour Wrap assertion that further details about the guarantee were given on other pages and in other materials, but we noted that these details were not given on the home page itself or directly linked to the claims. We also noted that the further details available on the site also described the inch loss, rather than the money back, as guaranteed. We therefore concluded that the ad was misleading.
Investigated under 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) and 13.1 (Weight control and slimming).
2. Upheld
The ASA acknowledged Universal Contour Wrap’s assertion that their claims for the specific expected inch loss amounts came from their experience of the product over several years and with regard to the experiences of many customers. However, Universal Contour Wrap did not provide data or records from this period showing the “inch loss” that their customers reported. We also noted that the results from the recent trainees included many that were within this range. However, we also noted that these results were self-reported and not independently verified, and that it was a small sample of customers. Moreover, the results were based on single treatments only, and therefore could not support the claim relating to average loss after three treatments. We had not seen sufficient evidence to substantiate the claims relating to the average inch loss that consumers could expect to experience, and therefore concluded that the ad was misleading.
Investigated under 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) and 13.1 (Weight control and slimming).
3. Upheld
The ASA noted that the articles provided by Universal Contour Wrap were positive about the detoxifying effects of Bentonite clay. However, we noted that most of this material was comprised of articles from natural health sites that did not constitute trials of the efficacy of Bentonite for detoxifying or specifically mention the effects of the clay in body wraps, and that as an extract from a communally-edited encyclopaedia the Wikipedia article also did not constitute suitable evidence for claims in the ad. We noted that the literature review referred to various studies on the properties of Bentonite, but did not provide these in full. We also noted that the review did not refer to the use of Bentonite in bandage wraps. We considered that the material submitted was not sufficient to demonstrate that use of the wraps could remove toxins from the body, and that the ad was therefore misleading.
Investigated under CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1 3.1 Marketing communications must not materially mislead or be likely to do so. (Misleading advertising) and 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)
4. Upheld
The ASA acknowledged Universal Contour Wrap’s assertion that they only claimed customers could lose inches through detoxification and body shaping, and that this was different to claiming that they would lose specific amounts of weight. However, we noted that the ad made references to the inch loss lasting for at least 30 days, described it as "instant and lasting" and favourably compared the procedure with diet and exercise. We also noted that the ad specifically stated that the treatment was not based on water loss. We therefore considered that consumers were likely to understand the inch loss claims as equivalent with weight loss claims because of the comparison with established weight loss methods and the longer-term nature of the treatment. We noted that the CAP Code prohibited claims that precise amounts of weight could be lost in a stated period or from specific parts of the body. Because we considered that the inch loss claims would be understood as weight loss, and because the ad contained references to "instant and lasting" precise “inch loss” as a result of the treatments, we concluded that the ad breached the Code.
Investigated under CAP Code (Edition 12) rule 13.9 13.9 Marketing communications must not contain claims that people can lose precise amounts of weight within a stated period or, except for marketing communications for surgical clinics, establishments and the like that comply with rule 12.3, that weight or fat can be lost from specific parts of the body. (Weight control and slimming).
Action
The ad must not appear again in its current form. We told Totally UK Ltd to ensure that they held robust evidence for claims in future ads and that they did not refer to precise amounts of weight loss.
