Search

Covid-19 Advertising Trends

• Research / Report / Survey

During the Covid-19 health crisis, and period of lockdown, we found ourselves in unprecedented … presentation looks at trends in advertising within the context of the ongoing covid-19 situation. 

Covid-19: Trends in Advertising

• ASA News

advertising over this time. During the Covid-19 health crisis, and period of lockdown, we found … drop in exposure to ads for sectors adversely impacted by Covid-19, including cinema releases (from … supermarkets. Some trends demonstrated the way in which we adapted to Covid-19, with increased exposure to

COVID-19: our regulatory approach

• ASA News

Coronavirus COVID-19 – Advertising responsibly

• CAP News

respiratory viruses like COVID-19.  Unless you hold very robust clinical trial evidence to prove … , beauty and slimming claims – see here. Although the health risks from COVID-19 may vary … be sought.  As such, ads which claim to offer advice on, diagnose or treat COVID-19 could be

Depicting COVID-19 safety measures in ads

• CAP News

public alike. The ASA recently issued some guiding principles relating to the depiction of COVID-19 safety

past six months or so we, and the ASA, have seen numerous ads include references to COVID-19 - from … that many ads were created ‘pre-COVID-19’ and that consumers are not likely to interpret … COVID-19, even if they are otherwise set in the ‘present’, need not show safety measures

Advertising IV Drips (Coronavirus/COVID-19)

• CAP News

they could help to prevent or treat Coronavirus/COVID-19. Claims to treat or prevent Coronavirus … /COVID-19 cannot be made for any formulated IV drip product or constituent ingredient. Read on for details and advice about how to comply.

Last week we published a new Enforcement Notice on Advertising IV Drips (Coronavirus/COVID-19) with … implied that the drips could help to prevent or treat Coronavirus / COVID-19 and follows three ASA … directly or indirectly claim that IV drips can prevent or treat Coronavirus/COVID-19. Advertisers

On the road again: travel marketing and COVID-19

• CAP News

Food supplements, COVID-19 and the immune system

• CAP News

. Don’t reference COVID-19 or coronavirus in an ad for a food or drink product It’s completely … references to COVID-19, coronavirus, viruses, flu (or any other adverse health condition), or any of the … help to treat COVID-19, referencing this fact in an ad for a food product implies that the product

Statement on the Depiction of Covid-19 Protective Measures in Ads

• Procedures

Since the start of the Covid-19 pandemic the ASA has been receiving complaints about ads that depict scenes or behaviours, (for instance: crowds of people in close proximity to each other or people in shops not wearing face masks), which go against current government and scientific rules and guidelines that are aimed at limiting the spread of Covid-19 through the population. This statement sets out the three guiding principles agreed by the ASA Council, that they … , the correct use of face masks and other protective Covid-19 measures in line with current Government

Copper Clothing Ltd t/a Copper Clothing

• Ruling
• Upheld
• 13 October 2021

good but does it offer the protection for others and your loved ones against COVID-19? Copper … face mask destroys 99.99% of COVID-19 in a matter of minutes.”

The complainant challenged whether the claim that the mask could destroy “99.99% of Covid-19 in … provided two studies which related specifically to the COVID-19 virus. In addition they provided two other … was no Parliamentary law surrounding face coverings and COVID-19. They stated that the Copper

Back to Normal

• Ruling
• Upheld
• 02 March 2022

of the drug ivermectin in treating COVID-19. Text stated, “The evidence is clear ivermectin … prevents and treats Covid 19 it breaks the chain of infection”. Under the sub-heading “What … is ivermectin and why we should use it against Covid 19”, text stated “Ivermectin is a well

treat COVID-19, were misleading. Back to Normal said that they believed ivermectin to be beneficial … in the treatment of COVID-19. They provided links to three websites which they believed supported … discussed the results of a meta-analysis of ivermectin COVID-19. The other, posted in May of 2021

Solihull Health Check Clinic

• Ruling
• Upheld
• 14 October 2020

, included a web page with the heading “COVID-19 Coronavirus Antibody Blood Testing&rdquo … COVID-19 Coronavirus Antibody Blood Tests with 100% accurate results within 24 hours of testing. Our … to the SARS-CoV-2 virus or better known as COVID-19 Coronavirus”. Text underneath stated

Summary of Council decision: Three issues were investigated, all of which were Upheld. 1. The complainant challenged whether the claim “100% accurate results” was misleading and could be substantiated; 2. The complainant also challenged whether the claim “Public Health England and Government Approved” was misleading, because it implied the test had received official endorsement; and 3. The ASA challenged whether the ad was misleading because it implied that a positive test result would indicate immunity from COVID-19. 1. Solihull Health Check Clinic said that they only used the Abbott venous sample SST test. They said that Abbott’s test has been found to demonstrate 100% sensitivity and 97.5% specificity, which meant that individuals could have confidence that they have been accurately tested. They provided assessments of the accuracy of the test from the clinical laboratory they worked with and from Public Health England. 2. Solihull Health Check Clinic said they did not claim to be endorsed by anyone, but that they merely highlighted that the test was approved by Public Health England. They said they had been approved by a clinical pathology laboratory to work with them to provide the tests and that all of the test results were provided to Public Health England for inclusion into official testing statistics. 3. Solihull Health Check Clinic said that a positive result indicated that the body had made antibodies and that it had therefore had an immune response to COVID-19. They referred to information from the Isle of Man Government which stated that if an antibody was found, it indicated that that person may have had COVID-19 in the recent past and have developed an immune response against the virus. The guidance said it was unknown how much protection, if any, antibodies might provide against another COVID-19 infection, that having a positive antibody test did not result in immunity to COVID-19 and that the test result would not enable someone to make decisions about work or travel. 1. Upheld The ASA noted that the antibody test offered by Solihull Health Check Clinic was a CE-marked in vitro diagnostic medical device. The test involved samples being taken in a clinic by a trained medical professional. CE certification in itself did not constitute evidence for medical efficacy claims, and advertisers needed to ensure that they held evidence for such claims. We considered consumers would understand the claim “100% accurate results” as an indication that the antibody test would detect, without fail and in all circumstances, whether or not a patient had contracted COVID-19. We understood that the accuracy of clinical tests could be evaluated in terms of their sensitivity and specificity. Sensitivity referred to the ability of a test to correctly identify patients with a disease, whereas specificity referred to the ability to correctly identify patients without a disease. We considered both aspects were important to determine the extent to which the antibody test in question was “accurate”. We noted that these terms were not referred to or explained in the ad. We considered that neither the sensitivity rate, nor the specificity rate, when used in isolation, were likely to conform with consumers’ likely understanding of “100% accuracy” as presented in the ad. The report from the advertiser’s laboratory and the evaluation by Public Health England both reported a specificity of 100%. The Public Health England evaluation also cited the manufacturer’s reported specificity of 99.6%. The report from the laboratory stated that the test had a sensitivity of 97.5%. Public Health England’s evaluation showed that for all samples they tested, the test had a sensitivity of 92.7%. The evaluation also indicated that the test’s sensitivity was dependent on the time that had elapsed between being tested and when the patient had reported the onset of COVID-19 symptoms. Public Health England’s analysis indicated … possibility of a previous infection with COVID-19. We considered the evidence was not adequate to … patient had contracted COVID-19. We therefore concluded that the ad was misleading. On that point

XMedical Ltd t/a Corona Test Centre

• Ruling
• Upheld
• 14 October 2020

A paid-for Facebook ad and a website for Corona Test Centre London, a COVID-19 antibody test … “Accurate COVID-19 Results”, “Peace of Mind” and “Antibody testing … recovering from a recent COVID-19 infection and have a level of immunity” and “Positive

Two complainants challenged whether the claims that the tests could indicate whether users had immunity to COVID-19 were misleading. XMedical Ltd stated that they made efforts to ensure that the information they presented to the public was informative and accessible. They said that their testing centre had been visited by thousands of people, including NHS professionals. They said that their advertising partner was increasing the awareness of the “Corona Test Centre” brand and that they were not directly selling or promoting the sale of test kits. They said that they had removed the ad from Facebook, Instagram and Google. They said that ad (b) was not an ad because it was their home page and their consent page. They said that the test was accurate and that the claims “Accurate COVID-19 Results”, “Peace of Mind” and “Antibody testing will tell you if you've had the virus and developed an immune response” in ad (b) were factually correct. They provided a study which they said demonstrated this. They also provided the manufacturer’s instruction sheets for the intended use of the testing kits and a Declaration of Conformity. They said that the antibody test’s purpose was to tell people whether or not they’d had the virus and had developed an immune response. This immune response was the production of IgM and IgG antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 and the presence of antibodies conferred a level of immunity. They said that they had not suggested that antibody testing results could be used to change or inform behaviour and that their Consent page on their website encouraged consumers to follow Government guidelines. Upheld The ASA welcomed XMedical’s removal of ad (a). We understood that the antibody test provided by XMedical was a CE-marked in vitro diagnostic medical device intended for the detection of antibodies to the SARS-CoV-2. The test involved samples being taken in a clinic by a trained medical professional. CE certification in itself did not constitute evidence for medical efficacy claims, and advertisers needed to ensure that they held evidence for such claims. XMedical had argued that ad (a) did not explicitly reference antibody testing kits. However, we considered that the title “Corona Test Centre London”, together with the clickable link “Book now” and the fact that it was a sponsored post, would be understood by consumers to be an ad for antibody testing. Furthermore, in that context, we considered that the statements “We are on a mission to safely get you back to your friends and back to work” and “Get your answers” would be interpreted by readers to mean that XMedical’s tests were capable of indicating whether or not someone could safely return to work and to social gatherings without fear of contracting or passing on the virus. In summary, that the tests would indicate if they were immune. We understood that ad (b) was a website which marketed XMedical’s antibody testing services, and we therefore considered it to be an ad which was within the ASA’s remit. Ad (b) included the claims: “Find out the stage of your recovery and help protect your loved ones”; “Accurate COVID-19 Results”; “Peace of Mind”; “Antibody testing will tell you if you've had the virus and developed an immune response. This is particularly important for asymptomatic people who may unknowingly spread COVID-19 to people they love in high risk groups”; “Positive IgG and Positive IgM: You’re recovering from a recent COVID-19 infection and have a level of immunity”; and “Positive IgG Negative IgM: You’ve recovered from COVID-19 and have a level of immunity”. We noted that there was no information in the ads which explained that a positive antibody result did not mean that a person was immune. We considered that consumers were likely to understand from the ads that a positive antibody test would show that they were immune to COVID-19, and would enable them to get back to work and other normal activities without the risk of contracting the virus again or transmitting it to others. As of 13 July 2020, Guidance published by the Department of Health and Social Care stated that there was no strong evidence yet to suggest that those who had been proven to have had the virus and to have produced antibodies were immune. Further, it stated that receiving a positive antibody result did not mean that a person was immune, or that they could not pass the virus on to others. It also did not mean that social distancing measures could be ignored. The Guidance explained that because COVID-19 was a new disease, understanding of the body’s immune response to it was limited and it was not known how long an antibody response lasted, whether the antibodies produced were effective in neutralising the virus, or whether having antibodies meant a person could not transmit the virus to others. It stated that the value of antibody tests was currently limited to answering the question of whether or not someone has had the virus, and providing data and a greater understanding on the spread of the virus. XMedical Ltd provided details of a pilot study of a of a GP practice in which 50 plasma samples were collected from staff and patients with and without symptoms of Covid-19 in order to examine two different testing methods and their ability to detect antibodies. The study related to the accuracy of the test in detecting antibodies and did not constitute evidence that the presence of antibodies indicated immunity, which was the message that consumers were likely to take from the ads. Taking into account Government advice on the link between antibody testing and immunity, we concluded that the impression given by the ads that the tests would indicate whether consumers were immune to COVID-19, was misleading and breached the Code. The ad breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1 (Misleading Advertising), 3.7 (Substantiation), 3.9 (Qualification) and 12.1 (Medicines, Medical devices, health-related products and beauty products). A paid-for Facebook ad and a website post for a COVID-19 test site were banned for implying that a positive antibody test would show that people were immune to the disease. The ads must not appear again in their current form. We told XMedical Ltd to ensure that they did not state or imply that a positive antibody test would show that consumers were immune to COVID-19.

Blood and Medical Services Ltd t/a Vivo Clinic Shop

• Ruling
• Upheld
• 05 May 2021

January 2021, included the heading “COVID-19 Tests”. Under the sub-heading “PCR

Four complainants, who failed to receive the results of their Covid-19 within their chosen time frame and who did not receive a refund, challenged whether the claim “Guaranteed results within the chosen time frame or your money back” was misleading. Blood and Medical Services Ltd t/a Vivo Clinic responded to explain the experience of one of the complainants. They said that their results had to be re-run by the lab, and that their terms and conditions clearly stated that they did not usually process a refund in the event of a re-run. Upheld The ASA considered consumers would understand the claim “Guaranteed results within the chosen time frame or your money back” to mean that consumers would receive their Covid-19 PCR test within the timeframe they had chosen, and if not, they would receive a refund. The CAP Code required that marketing communications must make clear each significant limitation to an advertised guarantee. We noted that there was no information about limitations provided in the ad, and no link to further information. Vivo Clinic’s terms and conditions stated “We are not responsible for delays in results. We are not responsible for delays in the provision of results arising due to late posting of samples to the laboratory” and “Occasionally a sample may need to be re-run if the original results were inconclusive … Refunds cannot be given for tests that require re-running”. We considered it was not clear in what circumstances a customer would receive a refund in the event that they did not receive their test results within their chosen timeframe. We considered that the significant limitations to the guarantee had not been made clear either in the ad itself, or by directing consumers to the relevant terms and conditions. We therefore concluded the ad was misleading and breached the Code. The ad breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1 (Misleading advertising), 3.54 and 3.55 (Guarantees and after-sales service). A website ad for a health clinic was banned for making misleading claims about the speed at which they could provide the results for Covid-19 tests. The ads must not appear again in their current form. We told Blood and Medical Services Ltd t/a Vivo Clinic to ensure that all significant limitations to their guarantee were prominently displayed in future ads which made reference to the guarantee.

Health Technologies Ltd

• Ruling
• Upheld
• 30 March 2022

Three ads for Qured.com, a Covid-19 testing service: a. An ‘About Us’ tab … on Qured.com’s Facebook page, seen in December 2021 stated, “…Covid-19 tests with results in 24 hours (from receipt of sample at the lab)”. b. A post on Qured.com’s Facebook page, also seen in December 2021 for a Fit to Fly PCR service stated, “… Choose standard free delivery or expedited courier (+ £29) for priority lab processing and results in 12-24 hours from swabbing)”. c. Claims on the advertiser’s own website, www.qured.com, seen in January 2022 stated, “… Fit to Fly PCR … results in 24-48 hours from check-in at lab” and “… How it Works. PCR Testing Take our swab test at home and send it back to the lab in the pre-paid envelope. Results within 24-48 hours of arriving at the lab. Or opt for our Expedited Courier service (within M25) to get guaranteed next day results”.

Four complainants, who did not receive their test results within the advertised time frames, challenged whether the claims “results in 12-24 hours from swabbing” in ad (a), “results in 24 hours (from receipt of sample at the lab” in ad (b), “results in 24-48 hours from check in at lab” and “guaranteed next day results” in ad (c), were misleading and could be substantiated. Health Technologies Ltd t/a Qured.com acknowledged that they had not always been able to provide results within the advertised timeframes. They said that the timeframes were based on service-level agreements and set by the laboratory they used for processing the tests. They said they had tried to update their advertising when timeframes increased, but that had not always been possible. They acknowledged that this would have affected some customers. They said they were now consistently running to a time frame of 24-36 hours for postal PCR tests and provided evidence to show that was the case in February 2022. They said they had amended their advertising to make clear that time scales were measured from when the tests were checked in at the lab, not when they were received. They explained that the guaranteed next day results service refunded customers whose results were not received within that time frame; the percentage of the fee refunded depended on the length of the delay. Upheld The ASA understood that PCR tests for travel had to be completed within strict time frames. Because of that, the turnaround time was likely to be a major factor in a consumer’s decision to use a particular company. We considered that consumers would understand the claims “results in 24 hours (from receipt of sample at the lab)” in ad (a), “results in 12-24 hours from swabbing” in ad (b) and “results in 24-48 hours from check in at lab” in ad (c) to mean that all, or almost all, test results would be received within those advertised time frames. We also considered that consumers were likely to interpret “guaranteed next day results” in ad (c) to mean that delivery of their results the day after they arrived at the lab would be certain, barring exceptional or unforeseen circumstances beyond Qured.com’s control. We noted that the ad did not include any information about offering a refund if that timescale was not achieved. Because Qured.com had been unable to show that was the case, we concluded that the claims had not been substantiated and were misleading. Ads (a), (b) and (c) breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rule 3.1 (Misleading advertising) and 3.7 (Substantiation). Three ads for a Covid-19 testing service were banned for being misleading.  We told Health Technologies Ltd t/a Qured.com to ensure that they were able to substantiate objective claims regarding timescales in future and to amend their advertising quickly if circumstances meant that they were no longer able to meet the advertised time frames. We also told them to make the conditions of their guarantee clear.

360 Health Ltd t/a London Vaccination Centre

• Ruling
• Upheld
• 14 October 2020

within 2 days whether you have potential antibodies (immunity) to COVID 19” and detailed … different antibody tests for COVID-19. One was called “ANTIBODY TEST””, and included

The complainant challenged whether the claims that the tests could indicate that users had immunity to COVID-19 were misleading. 360 Health Ltd said that corporate customers contacted them to request testing for their workforce, to enable their staff to get back to work. They reported that their staff would feel reassured if they knew whether or not they had had the infection. They said that some of their clients worked with the NHS and they felt it was important to know if they had been infected before continuing with work or seeing their families. They said that the Abbotts serology test detected IgG antibodies, which related to longer-term immunity or gM antibodies, which indicated a more recent infection. They said that antibodies were produced approximately 14 days after the initial infection and involved memory B plasma cells. They said that they did not know to what extent IgG protected the body from COVID-19 in the long term. They said that the difference between IgM and IgG was explained to their clients.360 Health stated that information on their website and at their clinics explained that there was not enough research or data available to understand the development of immunity to COVID-19. They said that they ensured that their clients understood the importance of following Government guidelines. 360 Health said that they had received five star reviews on a review website and provided a screenshot of a customer review. They said that they did not believe that the majority of people found their ad to be misleading and they had not received any other complaints. They said that they would review the messages across their websites and social media to ensure that the information provided was compliant. 360 Health provided the manufacturer’s instruction sheets for the testing kit’s intended use, as well as an Evaluation Report by Public Health England of the testing kit. Upheld The ASA understood that both the antibody tests listed in the email were CE-marked in vitro diagnostic medical devices intended for the detection of antibodies to SARS-CoV-2. Both tests involved samples being taken in a clinic by a trained medical professional. CE certification in itself did not constitute evidence for medical efficacy claims, and advertisers needed to ensure that they held evidence for such claims. We considered the claims in the ad, which included “Getting back to work with COVID testing and current services”, “… you might be thinking about getting back to work or the implications of visiting family and friends” and “This simple blood test can tell you within 2 days whether you have potential antibodies (immunity) to COVID 19”, as well as references to different types of antibodies, “long-term immunity”, and “Recent infection and longer term immunity respectively.” We noted that the qualification “potential” was used in reference to immunity, but we did not consider that conditional language counteracted the impression of efficacy in this context. Further, “long-term immunity” implied that the test would enable people to get back to normal life, rather than just detecting COVID-19 antibodies. We considered that consumers were therefore likely to understand from the ad that a positive antibody test would show that they were immune to COVID-19, and would enable them to get back to work and other normal activities without the risk of contracting the virus again or transmitting it to others. As of 13 July 2020, Guidance published by the Department of Health and Social Care stated that there was no strong evidence yet to suggest that those who had been proven to have had the virus and to have produced antibodies were immune. Further, it stated that receiving a positive antibody result did not mean that a person was immune, or that they couldn’t pass on the virus to others. It also did not mean that social distancing measures could be ignored. The Guidance explained that because COVID-19 was a new disease, understanding of the body’s immune response to it was limited and it was not known how long an antibody response lasted, whether the antibodies produced were effective in neutralising the virus, or whether having antibodies meant a person could not transmit the virus to others. It stated that the value of antibody tests was currently limited to answering the question of whether or not someone has had the virus, and providing data and a greater understanding on the spread of the virus. We understood that the Public Health England Evaluation Report of the testing kit provided by 360 Health assessed the test’s accuracy in detecting antibodies. It did not constitute evidence that the presence of antibodies indicated immunity, which was the message that consumers were likely to take from the ads We noted that there was no information in the ad itself which explained that a positive antibody result did not mean that a person was immune. Taking into account Government advice on the link between antibody testing and immunity, we concluded that the impression given by the ad,that the tests would indicate whether or not consumers were immune to COVID-19, was misleading and breached the Code. The ad breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1, 3.3 (Misleading Advertising), 3.9 (Qualification) and 12.1 (Medicines, Medical devices, health-related products and beauty products). A direct email from a vaccination clinic was banned for implying that a positive COVID-19 antibody test would show that people were immune to the disease. The ad must not appear again in its current form. We told 360 Health Ltd to ensure that they did not state or imply that a positive antibody test would show that consumers were immune to COVID-19.