Ad description
A national press ad for Legex, a passive leg exerciser, seen on 1 October 2016. The ad stated, “Are mobility issues preventing you from living life to the full? It doesn’t have to be that way! Enjoy effortless exercise, better circulation and greater mobility with this all-new [sic] Circulation Leg Exerciser … Relieves the aches and strains in sore legs and feet … Helps reduce swelling caused by poor circulation”.
Issue
The complainant challenged whether the efficacy claims for Legex were misleading and could be substantiated.
Response
BioEnergiser Ltd t/a Legex said that the claim “Are mobility issues preventing you from living life to the full” was a rhetorical question, and that the claim “Enjoy effortless exercise” would be amended to “Enjoy effortless passive exercise”. Furthermore, they said that the claim “Relieves aches and strains” was taken from an NHS document which concluded that to achieve better pain relief in patients with knee osteoarthritis, physiotherapists might consider adding passive manual mobilisation to optimise supervised active exercise programmes. They said that this document conveyed the benefits of passive exercise including maintaining muscle and tendon length, preventing stiffness, maintaining circulation along with the full range of movement in joints through stretching and that when a patient was ready, they could return to full functional ability. BioEnergiser also provided one systematic review.
Assessment
Upheld
The ASA considered that in the overall context of the ad, claims such as “Are mobility issues preventing you from living life to the full? … Enjoy effortless exercise, better circulation and greater mobility … Relieves the aches and strains in sore legs and feet … Helps reduce swelling caused by poor circulation” would be understood by consumers to mean that Legex was an effective device to improve mobility and to relieve associated symptoms, whether they were caused or exacerbated by specific, or a range, of general conditions. We acknowledged BioEnergiser’s willingness to revise the claim “Enjoy effortless exercise”. However, we did not consider that would be sufficient to negate the need to provide evidence to support the overall impression given.
We noted the reference to an NHS document and understood that it was based on a product which was likely to be used under the supervision of a suitably qualified healthcare professional. As BioEnergiser highlighted, passive manual mobilisation could be used by physiotherapists to optimise supervised active exercise programmes, therefore, not solely passive movement alone. Furthermore, the document related specifically to knee osteoarthritis rather than the more general references made by BioEnergiser and was not based on the use of the Legex device. For those reasons, and because we had not seen the original research, we therefore considered that this reference was not sufficient to support the claims made.
We also considered the systematic review provided by BioEnergiser and noted that it was based on participants specifically with knee pain and disability caused by osteoarthritis, rather than mobility, poor circulation, pain and stiffness in general as implied by the ad. Furthermore, we noted that the systematic review had included papers which assessed supervised treatments and excluded those that examined home exercise programmes as an intervention. We understood that Legex would predominantly be used at home, without supervision. We therefore considered that the systematic review was not sufficient to support the claims made for BioEnergiser’s Legex product.
Because we had not seen adequate evidence, we considered that the claims for Legex had not been substantiated and concluded that the ad breached the Code.
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) 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 again in its current form. We told BioEnergiser Ltd not to make any claims for Legex unless they held adequate documentary evidence to substantiate them.
