Background
Summary of Council decision:
Two issues were investigated, both of which were Upheld.
Ad description
A regional press ad stated "Treating FAT & CELLULITE Just got easy with PROSHOCK. Want to lose inches with no down time? Want a slimmer smoother body now? PROSHOCK ICE Ice shock LIPOlysis. For all your problem bulges, flab, dimples. FAST ACTION guaranteed. NON SURGICAL. GROUNDBREAKING TECHNOLOGY THAT DESTROYS FAT CELLS FAST". The ad featured some 'Before' and 'After' shots.
Issue
The complainant challenged whether:
1. the efficacy claims that Proshock could cause weight loss and treat cellulite were misleading and could be substantiated; and,
2. the before and after pictures were genuine.
Response
1. Lamphall Ltd t/a Epilight New Skin Clinics said they offered local fat reduction treatments using methods of cryolipolysis and the device, the Pro Shock Ice, was a medical class 2B device. They said the device, which was sold around the world, was manufactured by a reputable and long established company Promoitalia and had been tried and tested in many countries. They considered that the treatment results were reliable and said the process of cryolipolysis was FDA proven.
They stated that fat cells froze at a much higher temperature than other cells and tissues in the body and the treatment worked by freezing fat cells, causing apoptosis (programmed death of the cells). They said the fat cells were then removed by the processes within the body and did not grow back. They stated that the treatment additionally used high pressure acoustic shock waves to shatter and collapse the crystallised fat cells, which they stated gave an immediate measurable and visible reduction of fat, with the visible and measurable reduction continuing and increasing as the dead fat cells were flushed out by the body over the following weeks. They said the treatment also destroyed the fibro-sept and the macro nodules that were associated with cellulite.
They said the treatment was comfortable and was designed to target fat cells and all three types of cellulite.
They provided a clinical trial entitled "Synergistic Effects of Cryolipolysis and Shock Waves for Noninvasive Body Contouring" and stated it was carried out by medical experts and scientists. They said the trial treated different cases for fat removal, body sculpting or cellulite removal. They stated that the treatments were carried out on different areas of the body and individuals varied in their response depending on the amount of fat cells present in the treatment area. They stated that, for fat loss treatment, the more fat cells that were present in the treatment area, the bigger the fat removal result, and in areas of the body where fat cells were less prolific, such as knees or ankles, the results were, in some cases, negligible. They said four treatments were carried out over eight weeks and results started to show after the first treatment, and were cumulative over the four treatments and beyond. They stated that results were fast in comparison to the other technologies currently on the market.
They said they had treated over 100 patients and believed they had consistent results showing the efficacy, both for the fat removal treatment and for the cellulite removal treatment. They added that they had offered a money back guarantee because they considered that the treatment worked.
2. They stated the photographs used were genuine before and after photographs which were supplied by the manufacturer of the device, Promoitalia. They said the photographs showed a range of results on a range of individuals and on a range of different parts of the body for both fat removal and cellulite removal and were the clinical trial photographs of real people and documented results.
Assessment
1. Upheld
The ASA considered that the claims "Treating FAT & CELLULITE Just got easy with PROSHOCK", "Want to lose inches with no down time?", "Want a slimmer smoother body now?", "For all your problem bulges, flab, dimples", "FAST ACTION guaranteed" and "GROUNDBREAKING TECHNOLOGY THAT DESTROYS FAT CELLS FAST" would be interpreted by consumers to be claims that the treatment could cause weight loss and treat cellulite. We also noted that the advertisers were presenting the product as "GROUNDBREAKING TECHNOLOGY" and considered that breakthrough claims should be supported by a body of robust scientific evidence.
We acknowledged that the advertisers had provided a study in support of their claim, which had tested the treatment on 50 subjects and stated in the "Results" section that although "Weight was unchanged during the treatment", "the procedure significantly reduced the circumference in the treated areas, significantly diminishing fat thickness" and "the reduction in fat thickness was accompanied by a significant improvement in microcirculation, and thus, the cellulite".
The ASA consulted an expert. We understood that the study was described as a pilot study, was uncontrolled and non-blinded and that the testing methodology was not clearly explained. We understood that the test indicated that the testing method might have limited applications.
We further noted that measurements were made after eight weeks and there were no objective measurements to show that any effects persisted beyond eight weeks. We considered that claims such as "Want a slimmer smoother body now?" and "FAST ACTION guaranteed" would be understood to mean that effects would be seen relatively quickly and did not consider that consumers would interpret claims suggesting that the effects of a treatment were achievable "now" and "fast" to relate to the effects after an eight-week period.
We therefore considered that we not seen sufficient evidence to support breakthrough claims for the treatment in relation to fat loss and cellulite reduction and concluded that the ad's efficacy claims were misleading.
On that point, the claims 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), 3.11 3.11 Marketing communications must not mislead consumers by exaggerating the capability or performance of a product. (Exaggeration), 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) and 13.1 13.1 A weight-reduction regime in which the intake of energy is lower than its output is the most common self-treatment for achieving weight reduction. Any claim made for the effectiveness or action of a weight-reduction method or product must be backed, if applicable, by rigorous trials on people; testimonials that are not supported by trials do not constitute substantiation. (Weight control and slimming).
2. Upheld
We noted that the before and after pictures in the ad were taken from the study provided by the advertisers and understood that they featured genuine test subjects who had undergone the Pro Shock Ice treatment under the test conditions applied in the study. We understood from the expert that the description of the photographic methods was good and suggested good control of measurement techniques. However, although we understood that the pictures represented test subjects who had undergone the treatment, we noted, as set out under point 1, that the treatment's efficacy in achieving weight loss and cellulite removal had not been supported by the substantiation provided. We considered that, in the context of an ad for a weight loss and cellulite treatment, consumers would understand from the pictures that they would achieve weight loss and cellulite reduction if they underwent the treatment and that the results would be "fast". Although we noted that the photos featured test subjects who had undergone the treatment, because we had not seen sufficient documentation in support of the efficacy of the treatment in achieving weight loss and cellulite reduction, we considered that the pictures were unlikely to accurately represent what most consumers would achieve from the treatment and therefore concluded they were misleading.
On that point, the claims 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), 3.11 3.11 Marketing communications must not mislead consumers by exaggerating the capability or performance of a product. (Exaggeration), 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) and 13.1 13.1 A weight-reduction regime in which the intake of energy is lower than its output is the most common self-treatment for achieving weight reduction. Any claim made for the effectiveness or action of a weight-reduction method or product must be backed, if applicable, by rigorous trials on people; testimonials that are not supported by trials do not constitute substantiation. (Weight control and slimming).
Action
The ad must not appear again in its current form. We told the advertisers not to make breakthrough claims about the efficacy of a treatment, if they did not hold sufficient supporting evidence for the claims.
