Background
Summary of Council decision:
Two issues were investigated, both of which were Upheld.
Ad description
The website for Indigo Sun, www.indigosun.co.uk, a sunbed tanning salon company seen on 4 April 2025, featured an embedded video titled “The Health Benefits of Tanning”.
The video featured animated imagery and a voice-over which stated “We believe in more than just looking good, we're here to help you feel great too. Did you know new research shows that UV light in controlled doses offers more benefits than just a golden glow? At Indigo Sun we’ve always said vitamin D for your life, the sunshine vitamin. We all need vitamin D to stay healthy but the further north you live, the less sunshine you get and the less vitamin D your body produces. But did you know UV light from tanning beds also stimulates vitamin D production? But new research proves that moderate responsible use of sunbeds brings major health benefits. Still sceptical? A recent University of Edinburgh study revealed that UV exposure provides a net health benefit. Using data from over 360,000 people from the UK Biobank, scientists found that higher UV exposure whether from sunlight or tanning beds is linked to reduced deaths from cancer and heart disease. In fact, sunbed users showed a 15% lower risk of all-cause mortality, a 23% lower risk of dying from heart disease and a 14% lower risk of cancer mortality compared to those who never used tanning salons. The research also showed that sunbed use was not associated with melanoma mortality. We’ve always known the benefits of responsible tanning, but this study confirms it […] You can enjoy the health benefits without guilt when using sunbeds sensibly. Yes, too much sun or UV exposure can cause skin damage and people with certain skin types should avoid UV exposure. Vitamin D is essential. Vitamin D is for your life and in the UK, where the sun isn't always shining, where can you make sure you're getting yours? Indigo Sun.”
Beneath the video, the webpage also featured text which repeated claims made in the video and a link to the University of Edinburgh study.
Issue
The complainant, an NHS doctor, who believed the study referenced had been used out of context, challenged whether the ad:
- made misleading claims about the health benefits of ultraviolet (UV) light from sunbeds; and
- was irresponsible.
Response
1. & 2. Indigo Sun Retail Ltd t/a Indigo Sun believed the claims were substantiated by the findings of a study conducted by the University of Edinburgh, titled “Higher ultraviolet light exposure is associated with lower mortality: An analysis of data from the UK biobank cohort study” published in a journal. With 360,000 participants, whose data was in the UK Biobank, they said it was the largest UK study assessing the effects of UV radiation on human mortality. They listed 10 organisations they said supported and funded the study, but said those organisations had no role in the study’s methodology and analysis.
Indigo Sun believed the ad accurately promoted the benefits of solarium (sunbed) use and UV exposure from sunlight to counter what they considered to be negative and erroneous claims from other organisations. They believed those organisations based their statements on discredited research published before the benefits of UV exposure had been better understood. They said they presented their claims in an easy-to-understand manner, whilst also highlighting that too much sun or UV exposure could cause skin damage and that people with certain skin types should avoid UV exposure.
They said organisations such as the British Association of Dermatologists (BAD) were mainly concerned with the effect of UV light on skin. They believed BAD advice did not consider the overall health benefits of UV light on the body and improved regulations on sunbeds and responsible tanning.
Indigo Sun said sunbed use in the UK was highly regulated. Prior to gaining access to a sunbed in their salon, consumers had to be at least 18 years old and were screened by trained staff for any contraindications to tanning. Consumers were provided with protective eyewear and advised on session lengths to avoid burning. They said the number of sessions a consumer had was monitored (up to a maximum of 60 per year). Sunbeds were also subject to a maximum UV output, with an average session length being 12 minutes. They said it would take a regular sunbed user over two years to be exposed to the same amount of UV someone would be exposed to in just a few days during summer in the Mediterranean. They provided four additional research papers which they said supported their claims about the benefits of sunbed use.
Indigo Sun said the claim that a high proportion of melanoma and non-melanoma skin cancer being attributable to sunbed use was based on unreliable research. They believed the research papers they provided supported that view. They said the ad did not claim that sunbeds treated cancer or heart disease. Instead, it highlighted the findings from the study, which found that exposure to UV light, whether from sunlight or sunbeds, led to a reduction in mortality. They believed the study served as reliable evidence for demonstrating the beneficial effects of UV light.
Assessment
1. Upheld
The ad included the claims, “did you know UV light from tanning beds also stimulates vitamin D production?”, “UV exposure provides a net health benefit”, “moderate responsible use of sunbeds brings major health benefits” and “Vitamin D is for your life and in the UK, where the sun isn't always shining, where can you make sure you're getting yours? Indigo Sun”. It also featured various claims attributed to a study by the University of Edinburgh, including that “higher UV exposure, whether from sunlight or tanning beds, is linked to reduced deaths from cancer and heart disease” and “sunbed users showed a 15% lower risk of all-cause mortality, a 23% lower risk of dying from heart disease and a 14% lower risk of cancer mortality compared to those who never used tanning salons”. Finally, the ad claimed that “sunbed use was not associated with melanoma mortality”.
The ASA considered those claims created the impression that exposure to UV light, specifically through sunbed use, was conclusively proven to improve a consumer’s overall health. We considered consumers would understand the ad to mean that there were major health benefits attributed to sunbed use, which far outweighed any potential negative effects sunbed use could have on an individual’s health. We also considered that information was presented in a manner which implied they were supported by established medical evidence. We therefore expected to see robust scientific evidence consisting of studies and trials, to support the specific claims made in the ad.
Indigo Sun provided two critical reviews on reports about the link between sunbed use and melanoma, a research paper on the effects of sunbeds on vitamin D levels and a factsheet on sunbeds. Because those papers did not meet the standard of evidence required to support the claims and were not directly related to health benefits of sunbed use, we did not consider them to be relevant to the claims in the ad.
We assessed the analysis of the University of Edinburgh study, referenced in the ad and which Indigo Sun believed substantiated the claims made in the ad. The study estimated participants UV exposure by analysing their ‘sun-seeking behaviour’ and sunlight levels based on where they lived. When recording ‘sun-seeking behaviour’ data, participants were asked “how many times a year would you use a solarium or sunlamp?”. They were grouped as being a solarium user or non-user, responding either ‘one or more times per year’ or ‘never or less than once per year’. As part of the results, solarium users’ vs non-solarium users’ vitamin D levels and mortality rates were analysed. Participants were followed up for an average of 12.7 years. The age range of participants was between 39 and 73 years.
The purpose of the study was stated as being to provide a broad analysis on the link between UV exposure (including from natural sunlight) and mortality among older adults. That differed significantly from the claims in the ad, which were focused specifically on the health benefits of sunbed use only. In any case, although solarium use was one strand of the study, its results were fundamentally based on data collected from a questionnaire, which had several limitations. For example, the study acknowledged that participants may not have accurately reported their solarium use because they could not remember or because of the negative perception associated with them. Participants may also have changed their behaviour during the course of the study. Further to that, the study only divided participants’ use of solariums into ‘one or more times per year’ compared to ‘never, or less than once per year’. It did not compare the effects of UV exposure on people who were regular sunbed users, with those who used them a few times per year, nor did it specify how much UV exposure from sunbeds was required to achieve the stated health benefits. We considered that a study primarily based on results from a questionnaire, in which participants were asked to answer a generalised question about solarium use, did not constitute a sufficiently robust methodology to substantiate the claims in the ad.
We also assessed additional aspects of the study’s methodology. We considered the average follow-up time of 12.7 years per participant was relatively short for a longitudinal study of that nature, and consequently, that it would have limited the number of deaths recorded in the study. In addition, we noted that the age-range of participants excluded a significant group of people and was not representative of the UK population. As such, we further considered that the study was not sufficiently robust to substantiate the claims as they would be understood by consumers.
For those reasons, we concluded that the ad made misleading and unsubstantiated claims about the health benefits of sunbed use.
On that point, the ad breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1 and 3.3 (Misleading advertising), 3.7 (Substantiation), 3.11 (Exaggeration) and 12.1 (Medicines, medical devices, health-related products and beauty products).
2. Upheld
The ad stated “You can enjoy the health benefits without guilt when using sunbeds” and “sunbed use was not associated with melanoma mortality”.
However, the NHS website stated that the British Association of Dermatologists advised that people should not use sunbeds or sunlamps. It stated that they could be more dangerous than natural sunlight because they used a concentrated source of UV radiation. The website listed the health risks associated with sunbeds, which included skin cancer, premature skin ageing and sunburn. Additionally, the Cancer Research UK website stated “Are sunbeds safe to use? No. Sunbeds use high intensity UV radiation for quick tanning. UV radiation can damage the DNA in your skin cells. This can lead to skin cancer, including melanoma, which is the most serious type of skin cancer […] How likely is getting cancer from sunbeds? Too much UV radiation is the 3rd biggest cause of cancer and the main cause of skin cancer in the UK. Every time you use a sunbed you are damaging your skin and increasing your risk of skin cancer”. It further stated, “Do you need to use a sunbed to get enough vitamin D? No. Any vitamin D you might get through using a sunbed is outweighed by the harms of using sunbeds […] In the UK winter (between October and the end of March), the NHS recommends that people consider taking vitamin D supplements. Using sunbeds isn’t a recommended way of making vitamin D”.
We acknowledged that the ad stated “Yes too much sun or UV exposure can cause skin damage and people with certain skin types should avoid UV exposure”. However, we considered that did not counteract the overall impression of the ad, which was that the regular use of sunbeds offered major health benefits, and posed little risk, particularly in relation to developing melanoma. We considered the ad did not sufficiently highlight to consumers the known health risks of using sunbeds, as clearly stated by the NHS, nor did it present any alternative means of improving vitamin D levels such as through supplementation and diet. We further considered that where safer alternatives were available to consumers, irrespective of where they lived, it was irresponsible to promote sunbed use, with its known risks, as the primary way to increase vitamin D levels.
Because the ad omitted information on official advice from public health bodies about the risks of sunbeds, whilst creating an overall impression that the health benefits of using sunbeds significantly outweighed the risks, we concluded that it was irresponsible.
On that point, the ad breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 1.3 (Social responsibility).
Action
The ad must not appear again in its current form. We told Indigo Sun Retail Ltd t/a Indigo Sun to ensure they did not make misleading or irresponsible claims about the health benefits that could be obtained from the use of sunbeds.
