Background

Summary of Council decision:

Two issues were investigated, both of which were Upheld.

Ad description

A website for Chill WBC, www.chill1.co.uk, seen on 8 May 2017 featured a number of pages about the benefits of Cryotherapy:

a. A page titled “Pain Management” contained text which stated “A single whole body Cryotherapy session may reduce or eliminate pain from injury, inflammation, surgery or chronic conditions such as arthritis or fibromyalgia”. Further text under the sub-heading “Treatment of …” stated “Rheumatoid Arthritis, Osteoarthritis, Multiple Sclerosis, Chronic pain, Osteoporosis, Migraines…”

b. A page titled “Health & Wellness” stated “Decreases Depression and Anxiety”.

c. A page titled “Sports Recovery” featured a sub-heading titled “Exercise Recovery”, text stated “As inflammation is lowered and pain gets decreased, the body is more able to promote muscle recovery and heal itself. You can get back to your workout right after a WBC session, unlike with an ice bath”.

Issue

1. The complainant, who believed there was insufficient evidence to support Whole Body Cryotherapy, challenged whether the claims regarding exercise recovery in ad (c) were misleading and could be substantiated.

2. The ASA challenged whether ads (a) and (b) discouraged essential treatment for conditions for which medical supervision should be sought.

Response

1. Chill WBC provided a number of documents in support of the claims that included a study which investigated the changes in inflammatory response after Whole-Body Cryotherapy (WBC), a summary of cryotherapy studies, information about how the treatment worked and a number of Facebook testimonials.

2. Chill WBC said that they encouraged their customers to seek professional medical advice. They said that they were willing to amend their website to include the text "Whole body Cryotherapy does not replace medical advice or treatment. Please still seek advice from a doctor regarding your symptoms".

Assessment

1. Upheld

The ASA noted that ads (a), (b) and (c) featured a number of efficacy claims for WBC and listed a number of conditions such as “Rheumatoid Arthritis, Osteoarthritis and Multiple Sclerosis”. We considered that consumers would interpret the ads to mean that Whole Body Cryotherapy could provide effective treatment for all of the listed conditions.

We considered that such claims should be supported by robust evidence, including clinical trials of the treatments on people demonstrating the efficacy of the treatment.

Chill WBC provided a clinical study which investigated the effect of WBC on classical markers of exercise-induced muscle damage and inflammation. We were concerned about the rigor of the study as it omitted details that related to how participants were randomised and whether the study was blinded or not. We also noted that participants included “11 well trained males”. We considered that insufficient information was provided about the inclusion/exclusion criteria and that the sample size was not sufficient to support the wide ranging efficacy claims in the ad. We further noted that ad (b) contained the claim “You can get back to your workout right after a WBC session” and considered that the study did not relate directly to that claim. We therefore considered that the study was not sufficiently robust to support the claims in the ad.

The second document was a summary of a number of cryotherapy studies. We considered that the summaries alone were insufficient to support the wide ranging efficacy claims in the ad because they did not provide sufficient information to properly assess the methodology or results of the studies. On that basis, we did not consider that document was sufficient to support the claims in the ad.

Chill WBC also provided a number of documents from external sources with information about how cryotherapy worked. We noted that no information was provided about the source or references of the material. We considered that without that information we were unable to assess the credibility of the information. We therefore considered that those documents did not constitute sufficient evidence for the claims.

We noted that they had also provided a number of Facebook testimonials from customers that had received treatment. However, because of the limitations identified with the evidence supplied above, we considered that testimonials alone were insufficient to substantiate the claims in the ad. We therefore concluded that they had not been substantiated and were therefore misleading.

On that point, ads (a) and (b) 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).

2. Upheld

The CAP Code stated that marketers must not discourage essential treatment for conditions for which medical supervision should be sought. For example, they must not offer specific advice on, diagnosis of or treatment for such conditions unless that advice, diagnosis or treatment was conducted under the supervision of a suitably qualified health professional.

While we acknowledged that Chill WBC were willing to amend the ad to state “Whole body Cryotherapy does not replace medical advice or treatment. Please still seek advice from a doctor regarding your symptoms”, we noted that we had not seen evidence that the treatment was provided under the supervision of a suitably qualified health professional. We considered that in absence of such a professional it could therefore discourage essential medical treatment. For those reasons, we therefore concluded that the claims breached the Code.

On that point, ads (a) and (b) breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rule  12.2 12.2 Marketers must not discourage essential treatment for conditions for which medical supervision should be sought. For example, they must not offer specific advice on, diagnosis of or treatment for such conditions unless that advice, diagnosis or treatment is conducted under the supervision of a suitably qualified health professional. Accurate and responsible general information about such conditions may, however, be offered (see rule  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.
 ).
Health professionals will be deemed suitably qualified only if they can provide suitable credentials, for example, evidence of: relevant professional expertise or qualifications; systems for regular review of members' skills and competencies and suitable professional indemnity insurance covering all services provided; accreditation by a professional or regulatory body that has systems for dealing with complaints and taking disciplinary action and has registration based on minimum standards for training and qualifications.
 (Medicines, medical devices, health-related products and beauty products).

Action

The ad must not appear again its current form. We told Chill WBC to ensure that they held robust documentary evidence for future claims on the efficacy of cryotherapy. We also told them not to offer specific advice on, diagnosis of or treatment for conditions for which medical supervision was necessary.

CAP Code (Edition 12)

12.1     12.2     3.1     3.7    


More on