Ad description
A Facebook post and a website for Legacy 369, a health and beauty range:
a. The Facebook post on Legacy 369’s own account stated, “Let’s talk CBD skincare….Using CBD [cannabidiol] topically is ideal for targeting specific areas, this is because it goes to the cells, tissue and small blood vessels close to where you’ve applied it – not only does skincare infused with CBD enable you to target areas of pain, it also leaves your skin feeling nourished and soothed.
b. A page on the Legacy 369 website www.legacy369.co.uk, stated, “How will CBD benefit me? .... Due to current legislation in the UK and EU, we’re unable to make medical claims about any of our Products or indeed the health benefits of CBD in general. If you see other companies doing so about specific products, please be aware that they’re actually breaking the law and face the possibility of being closed down by the various Regulatory Authorities. That said, the internet is a rich source of information and stories and personal testimonials of how CBD has hugely benefitted individuals in both their mental and, [sic] their physical health, have abounded for hundreds if not thousands of years, used as it has been by alternative practitioners, therapists, herbalists and even doctors. There are currently studies being done in the UK into CBD for anxiety, psychosis and pain management in chronic illnesses. The most advanced research is into schizophrenia and rare forms of epilepsy.”
Issue
The ASA challenged whether the ads made medicinal claims for an unlicensed product.
Response
Legacy 369 Ltd said that on receiving the complaint they had removed the disputed text in ad (b) and ad (a) had also been removed.
They explained that the homepage of their website included a disclaimer that stated their products were not intended to diagnose, treat, cure or prevent disease and were not evaluated by the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA). Further to that they did not believe they had made medicinal claims in the ads.
They explained that they believed that the claim in ad (a), “… not only does skincare infused with CBD enable you to target areas of pain, it also leaves your skin feeling nourished and soothed” was accurate because the sentence before that had said it was applied “topically”. The ability of a user to place the balm wherever they wanted meant that it could be targeted.
They said CBD worked topically and transdermally and due to the combination of ingredients their product would melt at body temperature, so when it was applied it would be absorbed through the pores of the skin. As a result of the absorption of such ingredients it did leave the skin “feeling nourished and soothed”.
They said with regards to ad (b) the claims were for CBD in general and not their particular products which contained CBD with zero THC (tetrahydrocannabinol), which was compliant with UK law. Therefore the argument that medicinal claims were being made for an unlicensed product were not relevant in that particular context. The text also only stated the studies currently being carried out for CBD but did not reference the results. In addition text stated that they were unable to make medicinal claims for their product or CBD in general.
They said there was evidence that CBD could treat various ailments and provided a range of studies to support that CBD could assist with anxiety, psychosis, pain management, schizophrenia and epilepsy.
Assessment
Upheld
The CAP Code stated that medicinal or medical claims and indications may be made for a medicinal product that was licensed by the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) or under the auspices of the European Medicines Agency, or for a CE-marked medical device. A medicinal claim was a claim that a product or its constituent(s) could be used with a view to make a medical diagnosis or could treat or prevent disease, including an injury, ailment or adverse condition, whether of body or mind, in human beings.
The ASA noted Legacy 369’s comments that with regards to ad (a) the balm could be targeted and that the application and combination of ingredients in the product meant it would leave the skin feeling “nourished and soothed”. However, we considered that consumers would understand the claim, “Let’s talk CBD skincare … not only does skincare infused with CBD enable you to target areas of pain …” to mean that Legacy 369 CBD creams could relieve pain. The ad, therefore, made a medicinal claim.
Concerning ad (b), we acknowledged Legacy 369’s comments that the text made a general reference to CBD and did not refer to their products specifically. However, given the placement on the Legacy 369 website, where products that contained CBD were marketed, it was likely to be interpreted as meaning that, although direct reference to health benefits could not be made for legal reasons, nevertheless, medicinal properties were attributed to CBD products, including those available through the Legacy 369 website.
In addition, while the mention of research into CBD to help with illnesses only talked about studies and not results, the implication was that the existence and range of these studies indicated there was value with regards to CBD and treating the outlined medical conditions. That was further emphasised by text in the ad that said, “… information and stories and personal testimonies of how CBD has hugely benefitted individuals in both their mental and physical health, have abounded for hundreds if not thousands of studies, used as it has been by alternative practitioners, therapists, herbalists and even doctors.” We therefore considered that consumers would understand the references to ongoing studies into CBD into anxiety, psychosis, pain management, schizophrenia and epilepsy were medicinal claims for their products to treat those conditions and the presence of text stating medicinal or health claims could not be made for CBD would not have changed that impression.
We therefore considered that both ads contained medicinal claims. However, we understood that the products available did not have a relevant marketing authorisation from the MHRA and, therefore, no medicinal claims could be made.
The ads breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 12.1 and 12.11 (Medicines, medical devices, health-related products and beauty products).
Action
The ads must not appear again in the form complained of. We told Legacy 369 Ltd to ensure that future ads did not make medicinal claims for unlicensed products.
