Background
Summary of Council decision:
Two issues were investigated, both of which were Upheld.
Ad description
A website for UK Hair Loss Clinics, www.ukhairtransplantclinics.co.uk, seen on 26 June 2017, featured the heading “OFFICIALLY VOTED EUROPE’S NUMBER ONE HAIR-LOSS, HAIR TRANSPLANT CLINIC”. Further text on the page stated “See why 10,000 Patients Chose Us”.
Issue
The complainant challenged whether the following claims were misleading and could be substantiated:
1. “officially voted Europe’s number one hair-loss, hair transplant clinic”; and
2. “See why 10,000 patients chose us”.
Response
1. UK Hair Loss Clinics (NW) Ltd said that the claim was based on their review rating on Trust Pilot. They said that overall, UK Hair Loss Clinics was rated tenth best clinic across specialities. However, because none of the clinics listed above them specialised in hair loss and hair transplants, they felt that the statement was accurate.
2. UK Hair Loss Clinics provided evidence from their internal management system. The evidence showed that between 1 January 2017 and 15 August 2017, they received 12,254 enquiries for hair loss advice. They said that this figure equated to 19,606 enquiries in one year.
They also provided evidence regarding the number of people who booked consultations at the clinic. The evidence showed that 10,120 people attended consultations across all their clinics in the UK between 1 January 2016 and 30 June 2017. They explained that consultations were carried out by members of the clinical team which included surgeons, doctors and trained surgical assistants. They said that they offered a number of free and paid-for consultations which included hair loss measurements, photographs and reports which offered hair loss advice.
Assessment
1. Upheld
The ASA noted that the ad did not include any further information about the basis of the claim such as how the vote was carried out and by which organisation. We considered that consumers were likely to understand the claim “officially voted Europe’s number one hair-loss, hair transplant clinic” to mean that UK Hair Loss Clinics had been voted first place against all relevant hair loss and hair transplant clinics in Europe.
Trustpilot had compiled a list of the “Best Private Hospitals companies” ranked by their TrustScore (a measure based on customer reviews on Trustpilot). We noted that at the time of the complaint, UK Hair Loss Clinics was ranked tenth on the list. While we noted that the clinics ranked above UK Hair Loss Clinics did not solely specialise in hair loss treatments, we noted that the clinic had not been ranked first place. Furthermore, we noted that we had not seen any evidence that the list included all relevant hair transplant and hair loss clinics in Europe.
We concluded that because the claim implied that the UK Hair Loss Clinics had been voted number one against all relevant competitors in Europe, which we understood was not the case, the claim had not been substantiated and was therefore misleading.
On that point, the ad breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rule 3.1 3.1 Marketing communications must not materially mislead or be likely to do so. (Misleading advertising), 3.7 3.7 Before distributing or submitting a marketing communication for publication, marketers must hold documentary evidence to prove claims that consumers are likely to regard as objective and that are capable of objective substantiation. The ASA may regard claims as misleading in the absence of adequate substantiation. (Substantiation) and 3.33 (Comparisons with identifiable competitors).
2. Upheld
We considered that consumers were likely to understand the claim “see why 10,000 patients chose us” to mean that 10,000 people had received treatment from the UK Hair Loss Clinics.
The evidence supplied demonstrated that UK Hair Loss Clinics had received 12,254 enquiries for advice in approximately 7 months and that 10,120 people had attended initial consultations across all their clinics in the UK between 1 January 2016 and 30 June 2017. The consultations consisted of initial hair loss measurements, photographs and reports which provided hair loss advice. We understood from UK Hair Loss Clinics that not all of those who attended a consultation subsequently received treatment from the clinic. We therefore considered that the number of people who had attended consultations was not representative of the number who went on to receive treatment. We concluded that the claim had not been substantiated and was likely to mislead.
On that point, the ad breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1 3.1 Marketing communications must not materially mislead or be likely to do so. (Misleading advertising), 3.7 3.7 Before distributing or submitting a marketing communication for publication, marketers must hold documentary evidence to prove claims that consumers are likely to regard as objective and that are capable of objective substantiation. The ASA may regard claims as misleading in the absence of adequate substantiation. (Substantiation) and 3.11 3.11 Marketing communications must not mislead consumers by exaggerating the capability or performance of a product. (Exaggeration).
Action
The ad must not appear again in its current form. We told UK Hair Loss Clinics (NW) Ltd to ensure that they held documentary evidence for all claims and not to state or imply that they had provided treatment to a certain number of people unless they held documentary evidence to substantiate the figures.
