Background
Summary of Council decision:
Two issues were investigated, both of which were Upheld.
Ad description
A website for The Nutrition School, www.thenutritionschool.uk, seen in February 2016, promoted various nutrition courses. The home page included text which stated "WHY STUDY WITH THE NUTRITION SCHOOL? INDUSTRY CERTIFIED COURSES ... The Nutrition School is one of the largest online educators in the field of nutrition...". In a table which set out the benefits of three available courses, text stated "Approved by IICT, British Nutrition Council and The Obesity Society" and further text under the heading "Why choose us?" stated "Approved Courses ... We work with numerous partners that certify and approve our courses. These include The British Nutrition Council, The Obesity Society and The CPD Certification Service". On the page entitled "Accreditations & Partners", The British Nutrition Council and The Obesity Society were both listed and profiled. Both companies' logos, along with that of the IICT, appeared at the bottom of both pages.
Issue
1. The Association for Nutrition (AfN), a voluntary regulator for qualified nutritionists challenged whether the claim "The Nutrition School is one of the largest online educators in the field of nutrition" was misleading and could be substantiated.
2. The AfN and two members of the public challenged whether the ad misleadingly implied that the courses offered were approved and certified by a number of independent bodies, including The British Nutrition Council, The Continuing Professional Development Certification Service (CPD), The International Institute for Complementary Therapists (IICT) and The Obesity Society.
Response
1. Scott Austin Ltd t/a The Nutrition School stated that the school was the fastest growing online training provider in nutrition courses. They provided information regarding the number of students who had enrolled on one of the three courses they offered, and their turnover from January to March 2016. They also provided information regarding the AfN’s turnover and the number of new applicants from March 2014 to March 2015, sourced from their annual report. They understood that the AfN was the biggest and most recognised company in nutrition education and therefore a suitable company to make comparisons with. They noted that a comparison between the monthly averages of the number of students and turnover for both companies showed that they were superior to the AfN and would continue to be so in the coming months.
2. The Nutrition School said they no longer worked with the IICT or the CPD Certification Service but that they had purchased an annual membership from both. They provided copies of the relevant certification. They also stated that both The Obesity Society Ltd and The British Nutrition Council (BNC) were independent bodies and provided their Companies House numbers.
Assessment
1. Upheld
The ASA considered that, in the absence of any qualification, consumers were likely to understand the claim “The Nutrition School is one of the largest online educators in the field of nutrition” to mean that, relative to other online providers of education in the field of nutrition, they had enrolled one of the highest total number of students in the school since its inception. We also considered that consumers were likely to expect that the reference to ‘online educators’ included universities and overseas companies offering online courses. In the context of the page as a whole, we did not consider that consumers would interpret the claims to refer to the size of the business in terms of its turnover or market share. We noted that The Nutrition School had compared the monthly average of the number of pupils enrolled in their school from January to March 2016, with the monthly average of one of their competitors, the AfN, from March 2014 to March 2015, rather than the total number that both had enrolled. In addition, we did not consider that a comparison with only one competitor was adequate to demonstrate that The Nutrition School had enrolled one of the highest numbers of students relative to other providers of online nutrition courses across the industry. For those reasons, we considered that The Nutrition School had not provided adequate evidence to substantiate the claim and concluded that it was misleading.
On that point, 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), 3.33 3.33 Marketing communications that include a comparison with an identifiable competitor must not mislead, or be likely to mislead, the consumer about either the advertised product or the competing product. (Comparisons with identifiable competitors).
2. Upheld
We noted the site included a number of claims that The Nutrition School’s courses had been approved by a series of partner organisations. The site also featured the IICT logo, which stated “APPROVED Training Provider” and The Obesity Society logo. In light of those references, we considered that consumers were likely to believe that the courses had been approved or endorsed by the CPD, IICT and The Obesity Society.
The home page also included the logo of the BNC which stated “Accredited Provider”, references to “Industry certified courses” and text inviting consumers to “Become a BNC Registered Nutritionist”. Further, on the “Accreditation” page, text described the BNC as a professional body that governed a register of nutritionists who met the BNC criteria for competence and professionalism, and stated that “Completing a BNC accredited course will deliver the information needed to undertake a career in nutrition and will also support professionals wanting to expand their existing knowledge”. We considered that consumers were likely to understand those claims to mean that the courses offered by the school had been accredited by the BNC, an independent third party, and would be widely recognised within the profession as a means to demonstrate that an individual had reached a prescribed level of training.
We understood that while The Nutrition School had purchased memberships from both the CPD and the IICT in 2015, and held the relevant certification, they no longer had a formal relationship with either body and were not listed on their public lists of approved members. We noted that The Obesity Society logo featured on The Nutrition School’s website was that of the American Obesity Society, which we understood had no relationship with The Nutrition School. Further, we understood that the UK Obesity Society was a limited company with the same registered address as The Nutrition School and the BNC, as opposed to a separate body that had independently endorsed them. We also noted that the BNC was not recognised as an accrediting body, for example by Ofqual, and that The Nutrition School had not provided any evidence to show that the courses had been benchmarked against Ofqual’s requirements, or would otherwise be accepted by other third parties as a certificate of achievement within the profession.
Because the site implied that the school was endorsed by a number of independent third-party bodies, and that their courses were accredited by an official awarding organisation and recognised across the industry, when we understood that was not the case, we concluded that the ad was misleading.
On that point, 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 3.50 3.50 Marketing communications must not display a trust mark, quality mark or equivalent without the necessary authorisation. Marketing communications must not claim that the marketer (or any other entity referred to), the marketing communication or the advertised product has been approved, endorsed or authorised by any public or other body if it has not or without complying with the terms of the approval, endorsement or authorisation. (Endorsements and Testimonials).
Action
The ad must no longer appear in its current form. We told The Nutrition School to ensure they did not make comparative claims regarding the scale of their business, unless they held adequate comparative evidence to substantiate them, and did not imply that they had a relationship with, or were endorsed by, particular professional bodies when that was not the case. Further, we told them to ensure they did not state or imply that their qualifications were accredited by an independent third party, and recognised across the industry, if that was not the case.
