Ad description
A product for sale on the website, Rodial.co.uk, seen on 5 July 2011, was named “boob job”. A number of customer testimonials were featured, for example: “I didn't see any noticeable results until around 6 or 7 weeks after I started using Boob Job, but when the results did start to show they were amazing! I've gone from a 32A/B to a much fuller and firmer 32C, and I'm absolutely thrilled ... although, I think my boyfriend is even happier with the results than I am! :)" attributed to “Anon”; “THIS REALLY WORKS!! I went from 34B to 34C and their [sic] a lot firmer and rounder, I just cant [sic] believe it!" attributed to “Dianne Knoxe”; "Totally worth the money spent. Been a good number of weeks and I notice the effects very well. Was after about the 2nd week of the twice daily use and I noticed a more firm feel to my breasts and the stretch marks I have are gone as they have filled out with the plumping. A must have for any girl who is concidering [sic] plastic surgery to try this first. Cheaper in the long run and does make a difference. I am now a fuller, firmer and happier 36D. Thank you Rodial." attributed to “Katie O”.
A click through link on the product page was labelled “CLICK HERE TO SEE THE BOOB JOB KEY INGREDIENT CLINICALS”. Text on the landing page stated “Properties: Volufiline™ stimulates adipocyte differentiation and proliferation, and promotes lipid storage leading to an increase of adipocyte volume in the fatty tissue ... up to 8.4% improvement in volume ...”.
Issue
The complainant challenged whether the efficacy claims:
1. in the testimonials, that the product had an effect on breast size and firmness, could be substantiated;
2. for Volufiline could be substantiated.
3. The ASA challenged whether the ad made unauthorised medicinal claims, because the ad implied the modification of human physiology by way of pharmacological and/or metabolic pathways, and the MHRA confirmed that Volufiline was not licensed in the UK.
Response
1. – 3. Rodial stated they had removed the testimonials and clinical data.
Assessment
1. Upheld
The ASA noted that Rodial had not removed all testimonials containing efficacy claims from the website. We considered that consumers would understand statements such as “I didn't see any noticeable results until around 6 or 7 weeks ... but when the results did start to show they were amazing!” and “I've gone from a 32A/B to a much fuller and firmer 32C” to be efficacy claims that implied that the product had an effect on breast size and firmness. We noted, however, that we had not seen any documentary evidence in support of those claims and therefore concluded that the ad was likely to mislead.
On that point, the ad breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1 (Misleading advertising), 3.7 (Substantiation) and 3.47 (Endorsements and Testimonials).
2. Upheld
We acknowledged that Rodial had removed the claims. However, because we noted that that we had not seen any documentary evidence in support of the efficacy claims in the ad, we concluded that the ad was likely to mislead.
On that point, the ad breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1 (Misleading advertising) and 3.7 (Substantiation)
3. Upheld
We considered that claims like “Volufiline stimulates adipocyte differentiation and proliferation, and promotes lipid storage leading to an increase of adipocyte volume in the fatty tissue” and “up to 8.4% improvement in volume” implied the modification of human physiology by way of pharmacological and/or metabolic pathways. Because we understood that the product was not licensed by the relevant authorities in the UK, we considered that the ad made unauthorised medicinal claims and concluded the ad was in breach on that point.
The ad breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1 (Misleading advertising), 3.7 (Substantiation), 3.47 (Endorsements and Testimonials), 12.1 and 12.11 (Medicines, medical devices, health-related products and beauty products).
Action
The ad must not appear again in its current form.
