Background

Summary of Council decision:

Two issues were investigated, both of which were Upheld.

Ad description

A website and a paid-for Google Ad for Red Light Therapy, seen on 15 January 2021:

a. The website www.red-light-therapy.co.uk, included a web page with the heading “Red Light Therapy – Harness The Natural Power Of Light”. Under the sub-heading “PAIN RELIEF”, text stated “Reduces the inflammation and discomfort of a huge range of injuries and ailments. Combine the traditional use of infrared light with broader red wavelengths”. Under the sub-heading “HEALING”, text stated “Accelerates healing of muscles, tendons and ligaments. Helps with anxiety and depression”. Under the sub-heading “RECOVERY”, text stated “Aid the repair of muscle fibres, tendons and ligaments. The perfect post-workout treatment to aid in recovery from intense exercise”. A web page with the heading “Benefits of Red Light Therapy for Rheumatoid Arthritis” included the sub-heading which stated “HOW CAN RED LIGHT THERAPY HELP WITH RHEUMATOID ARTHRITIS”, under which text stated “Recent advancement in medical technology, the use of red light therapy has brought relief to many of the patients suffering from different forms of arthritis, more specifically those ailing from the rheumatoid kind of arthritis”.

b. The paid-for Google ad included text which stated “Red Light Therapy UK – Free Delivery & 3yr Warranty” and “Accelerates healing of muscles, tendons and ligaments. Reduces inflammation of arthritis. Harness the natural power of light … Accelerate healing”.

Issue

The complainant challenged whether the ads:

1. made medical claims for a product that was not a CE-marked medical device; and

2. discouraged essential treatment for conditions for which medical supervision should be sought.

Response

1. Red Light Therapy Ltd said that their devices were CE-marked and that they were certified by Restriction of Hazardous Substances, Federal Communications Commission and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. They provided certificates which they said supported that certification. Red Light Therapy also said that their products were not medical devices and had never been sold or marketed as such. They also provided a list of clinical studies to support the claims.

2. Red Light Therapy said that they never communicated that the advertised therapy should replace traditional methods nor discouraged any other treatment. They said language such as "Helps fight the signs of aging ...", "Accelerates healing ...", "Aid the repair ..." showed that Red Light Therapy could be used in conjunction with normal practises or treatments. Red Light Therapy said that they mentioned on their home page the related work NASA did around the complementary use of red light therapy for cancer treatment therapy.

Assessment

1. Upheld

The CAP Code stated that medical claims may be made for CE-marked medical devices. In itself CE certification did not constitute evidence for any medical efficacy claims, and advertisers needed to ensure that they held evidence for such claims. Ad (a) included references to “PAIN RELIEF”, “HEALING” and “RECOVERY”. Ad (a) also stated “Reduces the inflammation and discomfort of a huge range of injuries and ailments”, “Accelerates healing of muscles, tendons and ligaments. Helps with anxiety and depression”, “the use of red light therapy has brought relief to many of the patients suffering from different forms of arthritis, more specifically those ailing from the rheumatoid kind of arthritis”. Ad (b) stated “Accelerates healing of muscles, tendons and ligaments. Reduces inflammation of arthritis” and “Accelerate healing”.

The ASA considered that consumers would understand those claims to be medical claims that the Red Light Therapy product could treat the symptoms and conditions listed. We assessed the certification provided by the advertiser. The CE certification referred to test standards which related to electrical lighting and electromagnetic compatibility, and did not demonstrate the product conformed with the relevant medical device regulations. Therefore, we had not seen any evidence to demonstrate that the product was a CE-marked medical device and because of that, no medical claims could be made for the product. For that reason, we did not assess evidence for the claims. Because the ads made medical claims for a product which was not a CE-marked medical device we concluded that the ad breached the Code.

On that point, ads (a) and (b) breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rule  12.1 12.1 Objective claims must be backed by evidence, if relevant consisting of trials conducted on people. Substantiation will be assessed on the basis of the available scientific knowledge.
Medicinal or medical claims and indications may be made for a medicinal product that is licensed by the MHRA, VMD or under the auspices of the EMA, or for a CE-marked medical device. A medicinal claim is a claim that a product or its constituent(s) can be used with a view to making a medical diagnosis or can treat or prevent disease, including an injury, ailment or adverse condition, whether of body or mind, in human beings.
Secondary medicinal claims made for cosmetic products as defined in the appropriate European legislation must be backed by evidence. These are limited to any preventative action of the product and may not include claims to treat disease.
 (Medicines, medical devices, health-related products and beauty products).

2. Upheld

The CAP Code stated that marketers must not discourage essential treatment for conditions for which medical supervision should be sought. For example, they 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 health professional. Ad (a) referred to “depression” and “rheumatoid arthritis”, and ad (b) referred to “arthritis”, which were conditions for which medical supervision should be sought. Therefore, advice, diagnosis or treatment must be conducted under the supervision of a suitably qualified medical professional. We considered that by marketing the product as a treatment for depression, rheumatoid arthritis as well as other forms of arthritis, the ads discouraged essential treatment for those conditions, because the treatment offered by the product did not take place under the supervision of a suitably qualified health professional. We concluded that the ads discouraged essential medical treatment for conditions for which medical supervision should be sought and therefore breached the Code.

On that point, ads (a) and (b) breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rule  12.2 12.2 Marketers must not discourage essential treatment for conditions for which medical supervision should be sought. For example, they must not offer specific advice on, diagnosis of or treatment for such conditions unless that advice, diagnosis or treatment is conducted under the supervision of a suitably qualified health professional. Accurate and responsible general information about such conditions may, however, be offered (see rule  12.1 12.1 Objective claims must be backed by evidence, if relevant consisting of trials conducted on people. Substantiation will be assessed on the basis of the available scientific knowledge.
Medicinal or medical claims and indications may be made for a medicinal product that is licensed by the MHRA, VMD or under the auspices of the EMA, or for a CE-marked medical device. A medicinal claim is a claim that a product or its constituent(s) can be used with a view to making a medical diagnosis or can treat or prevent disease, including an injury, ailment or adverse condition, whether of body or mind, in human beings.
Secondary medicinal claims made for cosmetic products as defined in the appropriate European legislation must be backed by evidence. These are limited to any preventative action of the product and may not include claims to treat disease.
 ).
Health professionals will be deemed suitably qualified only if they can provide suitable credentials, for example, evidence of: relevant professional expertise or qualifications; systems for regular review of members' skills and competencies and suitable professional indemnity insurance covering all services provided; accreditation by a professional or regulatory body that has systems for dealing with complaints and taking disciplinary action and has registration based on minimum standards for training and qualifications.
 (Medicines, medical devices, health-related products and beauty products).

Action

The ad must not appear again in its current form. We told Red Light Therapy Ltd to ensure they did not discourage essential treatment for which medical supervision should be sought. We also told them to ensure that future ads did not contain medical claims unless they could demonstrate that the product was a CE-marked medical device.

CAP Code (Edition 12)

12.1     12.2    


More on