-
Coronavirus and COVID-19
causes coronavirus disease, the respiratory illness responsible for the COVID-19 pandemic. Colloquially … direct and indirect references to the coronavirus/COVID 19. Ads varied from those claiming to … Code for unlicensed products. CAP understands that claims to prevent or treat COVID-19 using
-
Covid-19 Advertising Trends
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
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
-
Coronavirus COVID-19 – Advertising responsibly
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
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)
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
-
Food supplements, COVID-19 and the immune system
. 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
-
Enforcement Notice: Advertising vitamin shots (Coronavirus/Covid-19)
This Enforcement Notice provides guidance to businesses which advertise “vitamin shots”. Advertisers must not state or imply that the shots could help prevent or treat Coronavirus/COVID-19. Licensed forms of injectable vitamin D and injectable vitamin B12 are prescription-only medicines (POMs) and as such should not be advertised to the public.
-
Enforcement Notice: Advertising claims for IV drips (Covid-19)
This Enforcement Notice provides guidance to businesses which advertise intravenous (IV Drips). Advertisers must not state or imply that IV drips could help to prevent or treat Coronavirus/COVID-19.
-
Statement on the Depiction of Covid-19 Protective Measures in Ads
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
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
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
-
Claims to treat Long COVID? Don’t be immune to the misleading advertising rules!
COVID-19 pandemic, many people are now living with long COVID – a condition characterised by … persistent or new symptoms following a COVID-19 infection, some of which can be debilitating. In this
Following the 2020 COVID-19 pandemic, many people are now living with long COVID – a … condition characterised by persistent or new symptoms following a COVID-19 infection, some of which can be … than four weeks after a COVID-19 infection. Long COVID is a new condition which is still being
-
Blood and Medical Services Ltd t/a Vivo Clinic Shop
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
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.
-
Cracking the (QR) code
’ helped in the fight against COVID-19. Although QR codes have been with us for many years, their use
trace’ helped in the fight against COVID-19. Although QR codes have been with us for many years
-
Cignpost Diagnostics Ltd
A newspaper ad for Cignpost Diagnostics, a Covid-19 screening provider, seen in the Daily Telegraph on 6 April 2021, featured an image of two people hugging in what appeared
At the time when this ad was seen in February, social distancing applied to workplaces, as per government guidelines. The complainant, who believed that the claims “Friends. Reunited’ and “Our clinically led back to work PCR testing programme enables social distancing practices to be relaxed in the work place”, alongside the image of two people hugging, contradicted Government guidelines to wear face masks and maintain social distancing in public, challenged whether the ad was misleading and irresponsible. Cignpost Diagnostics Ltd said that they included a footnote in the ad “Our clinically-led back to work PCR testing programme enables social distancing practices to be relaxed in the workplace”, which made clear that they encouraged employers to plan how they could be socially responsible by using PCR tests for whenever their employees returned to the office. They said it would be safer for employers to work with their experienced team rather than relying on an individual’s self-discipline in maintaining social distancing. They said that they were UK Government approved by the Department of Health and Social Care and were certified by the UK Accreditation Service. The ad promoted their back-to-work guide for businesses to help employers understand how best to return their employees to the office once the Government gave the green light to do so. Cignpost Diagnostics said that the text in the ad and footnotes made clear that they were referring to workplaces and that there was a distinction between rules applying to private workplaces and public spaces. The Government Guidance (the Guidance) on Office and contact centres stated that face masks were not mandatory in offices unless they were customer facing. They acknowledged that at the time the ad was seen, social distancing applied to workplaces. However, they said that the ad was forward looking and emphasised getting staff safely back into the workplace in the future when restrictions gradually eased. On 22 February 2021, the Government announced its roadmap out of lockdown which set a four-step plan to ease restrictions and issued guidance for private-sector employers on why workforces should be tested. The Guidance included a link to a list of testing providers, including Cignpost Diagnostics. They said that their footnote made clear that they offered a clinically-led PCR testing programme and the Government guide explained why PCR testing was more useful and accurate than lateral flow tests. They had provided testing services to a range of different businesses, many of which were unable to maintain social distancing measures and their testing programme enabled them to provide protection to their employees. The ad was also based on an independent research survey they commissioned which demonstrated that four out of ten businesses did not fully understand the different Covid-19 tests available. The Daily Telegraph said that they made every reasonable effort to ensure the ads they published were compliant with the CAP Code and on this occasion their internal procedures were not followed. They accepted the assessment and had taken steps to ensure the ad would not appear again in its current form. Upheld The ad was seen in the context of the Covid-19 pandemic. The ad showed an image of two people hugging, and although the background was blurred, it appeared to be in a large room, with desks, chairs and computers and we considered that it depicted an office setting. Claims included “Friends. Reunited.”, “Trust Cignpost Diagnostics to get Britain back to work safely” and “Download your back to work guide at cignpostdiagostics.com”, as well as small-print text which stated “Our clinically-led back to work PCR testing programme enables social distancing practices to be relaxed in the workplace”. We understood that the ad was aimed at employers who wanted to purchase wide-scale testing for employees in their workplaces and we … private providers of coronavirus (COVID-19) testing that companies providing sample collection or … private-sector providers who were undergoing UKAS accreditation in order to provide COVID-19 testing
-
Indiralaxmi Vignesh Ltd t/a Hale Clinic
continue to have problematic symptoms up to 3 months after the onset of COVID-19 — even after … that people with long COVID-19 experience include: Loss of taste and/or smell Sleep issues … brought to them after experiencing lingering symptoms of the Covid-19 virus”. b. The paid
This Ruling forms part of a wider piece of work on long COVID treatments, identified for investigation following intelligence gathered by the ASA. See also related rulings published on 30 August 2023. The ASA challenged whether the claims in ads (a) and (b) that hyperbaric oxygen therapy (HBOT) could treat long COVID were misleading and could be substantiated. Indiralaxmi Vignesh Ltd t/a The Hale Clinic said they appreciated the importance of ensuring that any advertising claims about medical treatments, including HBOT for long COVID, were fully substantiated and not misleading. They took their responsibilities to provide accurate, evidence-based information to the public seriously. They provided evidence to support their claims about the potential effectiveness of HBOT for long COVID. The Hale Clinic said that while they believed the studies substantiated their claims, they understood that medical research was a continuously evolving field and they remained committed to updating their understanding and communications based on the latest evidence. They also said they never presented HBOT as a guaranteed cure for long COVID. Instead, they presented it as a potential treatment option that may provide relief for some patients, based on scientific studies and under the guidance and supervision of medical professionals. Upheld Ad (a) stated “The most common symptoms that people with long COVID-19 experience include: Loss of taste and/or smell Sleep issues Tachycardia Gut issues Anxiety Difficulty breathing Joint pain Chest pain Brain fog, including an inability to concentrate and impaired memory Fatigue" and "HBOT […] is quickly proving to be a useful method complementary to long COVID treatment […] Over the past year there have been several people sharing the healing HBO treatment has brought to them after experiencing lingering symptoms of the Covid-19 virus”. Ad (b) stated “Long-Covid Treatment – Accelerates Healing & Recovery […] HBOT Helps In Alleviating Symptoms Such As Fatigue, Insomnia and More”. The ASA considered consumers would understand the ads to mean that HBOT could treat long COVID and the symptoms of it. We therefore expected to see robust scientific evidence to substantiate the claims. We assessed the evidence provided which included a published study, two medical press releases and two news articles. We did not consider that the news articles, one of which discussed the results of a study that used HBOT in subjects with long COVID and the other discussed the personal experience of someone who used HBOT for their long COVID symptoms, met the standard of evidence we required for the type of claims being made. Both press releases discussed the outcomes of the same small, double-blind, randomised controlled trial that measured the effect of HBOT on heart function in patients with long COVID. However, because they were only press releases, and we had not seen the study to which they related, we did not consider that they met the standard of evidence we required for the type of claims being made. The study, which involved giving ten HBOT sessions over a 12-day period to ten patients with long COVID-related fatigue symptoms, measured the change in fatigue and cognitive profile. The results showed a statistically significant improvement to both fatigue and some cognitive outcome measures. However, because the number of participants in the study was small, there was no control group, and it was not blinded, we considered that it did not meet the standard of evidence we expected to see. Furthermore, there was no follow-up to assess whether any of the measured improvements following HBOT were sustained. Therefore, because we had not seen adequate evidence to substantiate the efficacy claims that HBOT could treat long COVID or certain symptoms of it, we concluded that the ads were misleading. Ads (a) and (b) breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1 (Misleading advertising), 3.7 (Substantiation) and 12.1 (Medicines, medical devices, health-related products and beauty products). A website and paid-for search listing claimed that hyperbaric oxygen therapy could treat long Covid, which was misleading and couldn’t be substantiated. The ads must not appear again in the form complained of. We told Indiralaxmi Vignesh Ltd t/a The Hale Clinic not to state or imply that hyperbaric oxygen therapy (HBOT) could treat long COVID or certain symptoms of it unless they held adequate evidence that substantiated those claims.
Search
If you need help finding a particular page or resource on our website, please see our tips for searching on the ASA website.
90 result(s)