Background
Summary of Council decision:
Two issues were investigated, both of which were Upheld.
Ad description
A paid-for Facebook ad for Brainlab, a cognitive test company, seen on 9 August 2025, featured an image of 12 tiles, 11 of which were the same shade of pink and one was a slightly different shade. Text above the tiles stated, “DEMENTIA TEST”. If all your answers were correct, it means you do not have Alzheimer’s risk”. Text below the tiles stated, “Tap The Colour That Doesn’t Match”. A caption on the post stated, “Prevent early, test now”. The post included a link to the Brainlab website.Issue
- The complainant challenged whether the claim that the test could detect the risk of developing Alzheimer’s was misleading.
- The ASA challenged whether the ad discouraged essential treatment for a condition for which medical supervision should be sought.
Response
Chike Tech Ltd t/a Brainlab did not respond to the ASA’s enquiries.
Assessment
The ASA was concerned by Chike Tech Ltd t/a Brainlab’s lack of response and apparent disregard for the Code, which was a breach of CAP Code (Edition 12) rule 1.7 (Unreasonable delay). We reminded them of their responsibility to provide a response to our enquiries and told them to do so in future.
1. Upheld
The ad was for a cognitive test featuring various questions and puzzles. We considered consumers were likely to understand the claims “If all your answers were correct, it means you do not have Alzheimer’s risk” and “Prevent early, test now” to mean the product provided an accurate assessment on the risk of developing Alzheimer’s. We considered that impression was reinforced by the claim “Dementia test”, which despite being a general term for a collection of symptoms related to a decline in brain function, was closely associated with Alzheimer’s, which was a specific disease.
We therefore expected to see robust documentary evidence substantiating the claim that the test could detect the signs of Alzheimer’s. However, we received no such evidence from Brainlab. In the absence of any evidence, we concluded that the claim had not been substantiated and was therefore misleading.
On that point, the ad breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1 (Misleading advertising) and 3.7 (Substantiation).
2. Upheld
The CAP Code stated that marketers must not discourage essential treatment for conditions for which medical supervision should be sought. Advertisers must not offer specific advice on diagnosis of or treatment for such conditions, unless that advice, diagnosis or treatment was conducted under the supervision of a suitably qualified medical professional.
We considered Alzheimer’s disease was a condition for which medical supervision should be sought, and therefore advice, diagnosis or treatment should be conducted under the supervision of a suitably qualified health professional. We also considered that accurate and timely diagnosis was important for treating Alzheimer’s and the references in the ad to the product preventing the development of the disease could discourage consumers from seeking essential treatment promptly.
Because Brainlab had not supplied evidence that showed that their test was conducted under the supervision of a suitably qualified medical professional, we concluded that the ad discouraged essential treatment for conditions for which medical supervision should be sought, and therefore breached the Code.
On that point, the ad breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rule 12.2 (Medicines, medical devices, health-related products and beauty products).
Action
The ad must not appear again in the form complained of. We told Chike Tech Ltd t/a Brainlab to ensure they did not make claims that stated their product could detect the signs of Alzheimer’s if that was not the case. We also told them not to make claims that discouraged essential treatment for a condition for which medical supervision should be sought. We referred the matter to CAP’s Compliance team.
