Ad description

A website for StreamZ dog collars, www.streamz-global.com, seen on 10 October 2016 stated that StreamZ collars had achieved success “on horses and humans”; would support a range of medical conditions including “Mobility and fitness, injured and aching muscles, energy levels and vitality, digestion issues, general happiness and condition, overall wellbeing” and were as beneficial “as a balanced diet” for dogs of any age.

Issue

The complainant, who understood that magnetic resonance therapy, as used in the collars, was not clinically proven, challenged whether the claims were misleading and could be substantiated.

Response

StreamZ Global Ltd t/a StreamZ said they accepted the claim that its collars were “as beneficial as a balanced diet” could not be substantiated and removed it from their website.

StreamZ believed they could provide evidence for the claims that their product supported a range of conditions. They said their website stated that “Dog StreamZ are a complimentary form of medicine, they are not clinically proven”. They said they did not claim the product would cure any of the listed conditions, only support them. They said that the bands had been proven to assist and aid recovery.

To support their claims, StreamZ provided summaries of two studies completed by students at a university college which tested the efficacy of StreamZ technology on horses. They also provided a study they had carried out on 40 dogs that had been clinically diagnosed with arthritic conditions. They said that the study anecdotally confirmed that their claims that the collars could support a range of conditions could be supported by evidence. They also said that the studies did not represent clinical studies, however they could be used to collate enough anecdotal evidence to support the introduction of clinical studies.

Assessment

Upheld

The ASA considered that consumers would understand from the ad that the collars could support or assist a range of conditions. We acknowledged that StreamZ did not claim to cure any of the conditions. We considered, however, that the claims that the devices assisted or supported a range of conditions, were also medical claims that required substantiation, in this case including trials conducted on dogs.

The website stated that “successful independent studies” had been carried out and that StreamZ collars had “been shown” to support a number of conditions. The website also stated that the collars rebalanced a dog’s system back to “its natural resonant state” and included surveys and testimonials which suggested that the collars did support the listed conditions. We acknowledged the evidence that StreamZ submitted to support these claims, but we did not consider that the studies were adequate to support the claims made.

We considered that the summaries of the two independent studies submitted did not show that the technology would assist with any conditions suffered by dogs, because the studies were carried out on horses. The studies did not appear to conclude that the claims made by StreamZ had been proven. One stated that there was an association between StreamZ technology and improved tarsal joint mobility from the sample tested, but suggested that a larger sample was required to increase the robustness of the findings. The other study recommended further research with a larger sample size and taking into account previous injuries and medical diagnoses. In addition we had not seen the studies in full, and noted that they had not been published or subject to peer review so we did not consider that the studies were sufficient to support the claims that had been made.

StreamZ also provided studies that they had carried out themselves, but again, we did not consider that these were sufficient to support the claims that had been made. The tests were not carried out by veterinary professionals and were not placebo controlled. Although the StreamZ website stated that the studies were “independent”, they were arranged by StreamZ. They used a small sample size and relied on the observations of the dog owners only, rather than more objective observations.

Overall, we did not consider that the body of evidence provided was sufficient to substantiate the claims that StreamZ collars supported or assisted with any symptoms or conditions described in the ad. We therefore concluded that the claims had not been substantiated and were misleading.

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 StreamZ not to state or imply that their collars supported or assisted with any symptoms unless they had been clinically proven to do so.

CAP Code (Edition 12)

12.1     3.1     3.7    


More on