Dermal patches have been advertised as an aid for slimming, treating illness and providing general health benefits but many ads the ASA have investigated have been patchy when it comes to the Code.
If your ads make medicinal claims for products they must have a licence from the relevant authority before they are marketed, see rule 12.1. An ad which claimed to cause weight loss, which is a medicinal claim, and an ad for a different patch that claimed that it could treat prostate issues were both upheld because the products had not been licensed by the Medicines and Health Regulatory Authority (MHRA). Similarly, a weight loss patch ad made claims that the product could treat, reduce or prevent symptoms of various conditions including “eczema in infants”, “allergies”, “intestinal infections” and “depression, anxiety, stress and memory”. That was also upheld because the product was not licensed by the MHRA.
If you make objective claims about your product ensure you hold evidence to support them: see rule 3.7. Complaints about ads for patches that claimed to assist energy, focus, memory, improved skin, aging, mood, stress and motivation were also upheld. While a large body of evidence was submitted for individual components of those patches, including clinical trials, the trials only considered oral and topical application, rather than as a patch, and in doses that far exceeded that found in the product.
If you use testimonials or endorsements in your marketing you must hold evidence they are genuine, see rule 3.47. The ASA upheld against an ad for a weight loss patch because the ad featured testimonials claiming the product could achieve weight loss (which was also a medicinal claim), but the advertiser provided no evidence they were genuine. In addition, the ad claimed that high profile actresses had endorsed the product but only much later in the ad did it state the actresses recommended general probiotics and not the specific product.
Finally as well as not being misleading, ads must be prepared with a sense of responsibility: see rule 1.3. An ad for a slimming patch was deemed irresponsible because it normalised the aspiration to be dangerously thin by featuring an unhealthily thin woman as an “after” result using their product.
If you adhere to these top tips your ads should stick to the rules.More on
-
Keep up to date
Sign up to our rulings, newsletters and emargoed access for Press. Subscribe now.
