Background
Summary of Council decision:
Six issues were investigated, all of which were Upheld.
Ad description
A leaflet, for a fingerprint analysis service, was headed "A Dermatoglyphics Report: The Best Gift for Your Child". Further text stated "The study of dermatoglyphics started in 1823 when scientists discovered the relevance of fingerprints and multiple intelligence in humans. This is a proven technology to decode your child's inborn strength and weakness and to reveal your child's: innate characteristics ... inborn learning styles ... hidden talent and potential". Three testimonials were featured which claimed that the service had identified character traits and learning styles in their children. One of the testimonials stated "the Dermatoglyphics Code Test has accuracy as high as 95%". Under the heading "HOW DO WE DO IT?" further text stated "An infra-red device is used to scan all 10 fingerprints. Data (the fingerprint pattern) will be decoded by a US-Patent software. A report will be printed for the client. Consultation of the report shall be conducted by a qualified Dermatoglyphics Consultant".
Issue
The complainant challenged whether the following claims were misleading, and could be substantiated:
1. "The study of dermatoglyphics started in 1823 when scientists discovered the relevance of fingerprints and multiple intelligence in humans";
2. "This is a proven technology to decode your child's inborn strength and weakness and to reveal your child's: innate characteristics ... inborn learning styles ... hidden talent and potential";
3. "Data (the fingerprint pattern) will be decoded by a US-Patent software";
4. "Consultation of the report shall be conducted by a qualified Dermatoglyphics Consultant";
5. "the Dermatoglyphics Code Test has accuracy as high as 95%"; and
6. whether the testimonials were genuine.
Response
Brain Child Ltd (BCL) did not respond to the ASA's enquiries.
Assessment
The ASA was concerned by BCL's lack of response and apparent disregard for the Code, which was a breach of CAP Code (Edition 12) rule 1.7 1.7 Any unreasonable delay in responding to the ASA's enquiries will normally be considered a breach of the Code. (Unreasonable delay). We reminded them of their responsibility to respond promptly to our enquiries and told them to do so in future.
1. – 6. Upheld
We noted that we had not seen any evidence to support the challenged claims or testimonials and, because they had not been substantiated, we concluded that they were misleading.
On points 1 to 5 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), 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) and on point 6 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) and 3.45 3.45 Marketers must hold documentary evidence that a testimonial or endorsement used in a marketing communication is genuine, unless it is obviously fictitious, and hold contact details for the person who, or organisation that, gives it. (Endorsements and testimonials).
Action
The ad must not appear again in its current form. We referred the matter to CAP's Compliance team.
