Ad description
A magazine ad for BetterYou, a supplement company, seen in the January 2026 edition of the Waitrose & Partners’ Food magazine, stated in relation to their Vitamin D3 and K2 daily oral spray that “95% agreed it delivers Vitamin D quickly and efficiently”, in large font size with an image of the spray bottle beside it. In smaller writing it stated further down the page, “*Based on an independent consumer trial of 245 participants using the product daily for 6 weeks”. It also stated, “Oral sprays that deliver fast effective nutrition absorption”.
Issue
The complainant challenged whether the claim “95% agreed it delivers Vitamin D quickly and efficiently” was misleading and could be substantiated.
Response
BetterYou Ltd stated that the claim was intended to reflect consumer experience of the product’s oral spray delivery system. They provided an independent consumer research study, conducted by a market research company, with 245 participants.
As part of the study, participants were asked, “Which, if any, of these are the reasons why you personally might purchase this product in the future?”, and 95% selected the option that stated, “it delivers vitamins quickly and efficiently”. BetterYou also provided the methodology document for the consumer research, stating data was collected via an online quantitative survey using panel respondents who were screened for eligibility. That included respondents who were aged 25 to 60 years, were regular vitamin/supplement users and were likely to purchase the product. They confirmed that the survey was issued to eligible consumers six weeks after sending them the product to try.
BetterYou also submitted a number of clinical studies and scientific papers which they believed substantiated the claim that the oral spray delivered vitamin D “quickly and efficiently”.
Assessment
Upheld
The CAP Code stated that 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 considered that, in the context of an ad for a vitamin supplement delivered via an oral spray, and in particular the text “Oral sprays that deliver fast effective nutrition absorption”, consumers were likely to understand the claim “delivers Vitamin D quickly and efficiently” as meaning that the product delivered vitamin D efficiently, with fast absorption into the body. We considered the additional wording in the ad, referring to “fast effective nutrition absorption”, reinforced the impression that “quickly” referred to speed of absorption of vitamin D into the body.
We acknowledged that BetterYou’s consumer research indicated that 95% of participants selected “it delivers vitamins quickly and efficiently” as a reason they might purchase the product. However, we considered a claim that the product delivered vitamin D “quickly and efficiently” required robust scientific evidence based on objective measures of both efficient and fast delivery of vitamin D within the body, rather than anecdotal reports based on consumer experience alone, and we therefore did not assess the consumer research further.
We assessed the clinical findings provided. We first considered a study which examined whether Vitamin D3 from BetterYou oral sprays could pass through tissue lining in the mouth. The study was conducted on pig tissue in a laboratory setting rather than in human participants. We therefore considered that it was not sufficient to demonstrate that the product delivered vitamin D quickly and efficiently in humans.
A randomised, double-blinded, three-arm parallel design trial related to vitamin D supplementation in participants with irritable bowel syndrome. We considered the primary focus of that study was on specific health outcomes associated with vitamin D supplementation, rather than the efficiency or speed of vitamin D delivery in a population representative of the wider public. We also noted it involved a relatively small sample size of 51 participants, nine of whom did not complete the study questionnaires. We further understood that participants received both oral sprays and capsule supplements during the study, meaning it was difficult to isolate the effect of each delivery format individually. In addition, the study measured changes in vitamin D levels over an extended period rather than assessing how rapidly vitamin D entered the bloodstream following administration. We therefore considered the study was not sufficiently robust to substantiate the claim that the product delivered vitamin D quickly and efficiently.
A parallel group, double-blinded, randomised, placebo-controlled trial compared participants who used the BetterYou Vitamin D oral spray with those given a placebo. We noted the study found that participants using the oral spray showed significantly increased vitamin D levels compared with the placebo group. However, the study population consisted of young athletes and therefore was not necessarily representative of the wider population. We also noted that the sample size was relatively small, with 42 participants initially enrolled and seven later dropping out of the study. While the study demonstrated that vitamin D levels increased over the 12-week supplementation period, it did not assess the speed or efficiency of absorption immediately following use of the product.
A study, funded by both BetterYou and a British university, used a double-blind, placebo-controlled three arm parallel design involving 75 participants. The study compared BetterYou Vitamin D oral sprays with vitamin D capsule supplements to assess how effectively each method increased vitamin D levels in the body. We noted the study found that both the oral spray and capsule formulations were equally effective at increasing participants’ vitamin D levels. While vitamin D levels were measured at several timepoints across the study period, including at baseline and then after 3, 7, 14, 21 and 42 days of supplementation, the study did not assess immediate absorption following administration or otherwise demonstrate quick delivery of vitamin D into the body.
We then finally considered an open-label crossover clinical study which compared a vitamin D3 oral spray with vitamin D soft gel capsule supplements in both healthy participants and participants with conditions affecting nutrient absorption. Although the sample size was relatively small at 40 participants, we noted the study found that participants using the oral spray showed higher vitamin D levels in the blood than those using the capsule supplements. However, blood samples were collected only at baseline and then at 30-day intervals across the study, rather than immediately or shortly after administration. It also did not consider whether the product delivered vitamin D quickly or enabled fast absorption.
Taken together, we considered the evidence indicated that vitamin D oral spray formulations were capable of effectively increasing vitamin D levels within the body. However, none of the studies demonstrated that it delivered vitamin D quickly or enabled fast absorption into the body.
We therefore concluded that the claim “95% agreed it delivers Vitamin D quickly and efficiently” had not been adequately substantiated and was misleading.
The ad breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1 and 3.7 (Substantiation).
Action
The ad must not appear again in the form complained of. We told BetterYou Ltd not to make claims that their product delivered vitamin D “quickly” or claims that implied their product enabled fast absorption of vitamin D into the body, unless they held sufficient robust evidence to substantiate those claims.
