Background
Summary of Council decision:
Three issues were investigated all of which were Upheld.
Ad description
An advertorial, for Dead Sea Kit and Collagenta, products which purported to remove wrinkles, was headed "Don't Break the Bank: A London Mum's £10 Trick to a Wrinkle FREE Face". Further text stated "Marcy Collins, a single mother of three from London, is the perfect example of a smart consumer using the web to get quality products without breaking the bank … The products from Dead Sea Kit and Collagenta, two of the most respected names in anti-aging science, have helped her unlock the secrets of anti-aging. The age defying results speak for themselves and are comparable to what you might get at high end Health Spas and Doctor's offices for £1,500 or more - all while using nothing but free trial products from the most respected skin care companies".
Further text stated "But hurry! Our report has generated a lot of buzz and these free trials* won't be available forever … UPDATE: Due to the popularity of this report, the manufacturers have extremely limited the number of the free trials that can be claimed from this page daily. Please understand the free trials are given away on a first come first serve basis, so if you are able to click through the links below and see their sites, you still have an opportunity to claim a spot today … STEP 1: Click Here For A Free Trial Of Dead Sea Kit (Only 4 more trials available today. Use our exclusive promo link for £4.95 S&H!) STEP 2: Click Here For A Free Trial Of Collagenta (Only 5 more trials available today. Use our exclusive promo link for £4.95 S&H!)" The ad featured text which stated "***Free Trial Promotions Expire Thursday, November 8, 2012 at Midnight". The expiry date was the date the ad was viewed and appeared to update on a daily basis.
Text at the foot of the ad, beneath the sub-heading "Terms & Agreement" stated "It is important to note that this site and the comments/answers depicted above is [sic] to be used as an illustrative example of what some individuals have achieved with this/these products. This website, and any page on the website, is based loosely off a true story, but has been modified in multiple ways including, but not limited to: the story, the photos, and the comments. Thus, this page, and any page on this website, are not to be taken literally or as a non-fiction story. This page, and the results mentioned on this page, although achievable for some, are not to be construed as the results that you may achieve on the same routine. I UNDERSTAND THIS WEBSITE IS ONLY ILLUSTRATIVE OF WHAT MIGHT BE ACHIEVABLE FROM USING THIS/THESE PRODUCTS, AND THAT THE STORY/COMMENTS DEPICTED ABOVE IS NOT TO BE TAKEN LITERALLY".
Issue
1. Two complainants challenged whether the ad was misleading, because it failed to make clear the costs that consumers who requested a product sample would incur.
2. One complainant challenged whether the ad misleadingly implied that the products could achieve the stated efficacy claims, because the footnote made clear that the ad was based loosely on a true story, which had been modified with regard to story, photographs and comments.
3. A further complainant challenged whether the claim that the offer was due to expire on the date the ad was viewed was misleading and could be substantiated, because they understood the offer was available on a permanent basis.
Response
DS Marketing did not respond to the ASA's enquiries.
Assessment
The ASA was concerned by DS Marketing's lack of response and apparent disregard for the Code, which was a breach of CAP Code (Edition 12) rule 1.7 (Unreasonable delay). We reminded them of their responsibility to respond promptly to our enquiries and we told them to do so in future.
1. Upheld
We noted the small print at the bottom of the page, stated that continuous billing applied to some of the advertised products. However, the text did not make clear to which products continuous billing applied, or whether consumers could avoid continuous billing if they returned the product by a specified date. We also noted the brief information regarding continuous billing appeared in small grey text at the bottom of a very long web page and appeared much lower down the page than the links to request a free trial. We noted there was nothing to indicate to consumers that they would find terms and conditions at the bottom of the web page. We concluded the terms and conditions of the offer had not been presented sufficiently clearly to consumers.
On this point, the ad breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1 (Misleading advertising), 3.9 and 3.10 (Qualification) and 8.17.1 (Significant Conditions for Promotions).
2. Upheld
We noted the ad made a number claims that the advertised products could reduce wrinkles. We also noted the ad featured text at the foot of the page which made clear that the ads were based loosely on a true story, which had been modified with regard to story, photographs and comments. In the absence of any evidence to support the efficacy claims for the advertised products, we considered the claims had not been substantiated. We therefore concluded that the ad breached the Code.
On this point, the ad breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1 (Misleading advertising) and 3.7 (Substantiation).
3. Upheld
In the absence of any evidence to demonstrate that the offer expiry date was accurate, we considered the claim had not been substantiated. We therefore concluded that the ad breached the Code.
On this point, the ad breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1 (Misleading advertising) and 3.7 (Substantiation).
Action
The ad must not appear again in its current form. We referred the matter to CAP's Compliance team.
