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

Claims to treat Long COVID? Don’t be immune to the misleading advertising rules!

• CAP News

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

• 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.

Cracking the (QR) code

• CAP News

’ 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

• Ruling
• Upheld
• 21 July 2021

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

The Detox Clinic Ltd

• Ruling
• Upheld
• 10 February 2021

which stated “Ozone proven to beat COVID-19!”. A web page titled “Colon

Summary of Council decision: Two issues were investigated, both of which were Upheld. 1. The complainant challenged whether the claim “Ozone proven to beat COVID-19” was misleading and could be substantiated. 2. The same complainant also challenged whether the claims that colon hydrotherapy therapy could help people with irritable bowel syndrome were misleading and could be substantiated. 1. The Detox Clinic Ltd said that the statement was accompanied by a link to Italian, Spanish and Chinese clinical studies that they said proved that ozone therapy was beating Covid-19. They added that their clients could read the newspaper announcements and details of those clinical trials to make up their own minds. The Detox Clinic added that there were also thousands of articles and clinical studies on the efficacy of ozone therapy, generally, published in an online database of scientific research. 2. The Detox Clinic said that the ad did not claim to “treat” irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) but rather mentioned “relief from the symptoms of IBS”. The Detox Clinic therefore believed that there was no claim to diagnose, treat or cure IBS on the website. The Detox Clinic added that the medical assessment, diagnosis and treatment plan were all conducted by medically-licenced doctors and health professionals within the NHS. They stated that The Detox Clinic helped relieve symptoms of constipation and offered general health advice available in the public domain and referred back to a GP where appropriate. The Detox Clinic also stated that complementary and alternative therapies for IBS were part of the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) clinical pathway for the management of IBS with the exception of acupuncture and reflexology. The Detox Clinic stated that rectal irrigation was also a NICE recommendation for both faecal incontinence and faecal impact. Finally, The Detox Clinic stated that doctors were able to refer patients who wanted colonic irrigation to Complementary and Natural Healthcare Council (CNHC) registered practitioners. 1. Upheld The ASA considered that consumers were likely to interpret the claim “Ozone proven to beat COVID-19” to mean that ozone therapy was a successful treatment for Covid-19 in people who tested positive for the virus. We noted that the original claim had been amended to state “Spanish, Italian and Chinese doctors claim Ozone Therapy is beating Covid19 in clinical trials”. However, we considered that the amended claim did not alter the overall impression likely to be given to consumers. We reviewed the link provided, which displayed a web page for an ozone therapy equipment supplier. The specific web page was titled “CASE STUDIES COVID-19” and contained a list of various news articles, a Facebook post, a letter and a guidance document. Some of those documents were inaccessible, including a link that appeared to be a study. We were not provided with access to the full document and therefore could not review it. The linked web page also provided a further link to an online database, which displayed thousands of results in relation to ozone therapy in general. There were only limited results specifically regarding COVID-19 and none of those results appeared to be Randomised Controlled Trials. We acknowledged that some of the papers were about the use of ozone therapy in relation to COVID-19 treatment, but they were narrative reviews rather than actual experimental trials of any kind. We therefore considered that we had not seen sufficient substantiation to support the claim, as consumers were likely to understand it. We concluded that the claim was misleading and breached the Code. On that point the ad 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). 2. Upheld The ad stated “People have colon hydrotherapy for a wide range of reasons. Some are looking for relief from the symptoms of IBS” and also contained the claim “It can be useful in helping with conditions such as: … Irritable Bowel Syndrome”. We considered the claims were likely to be understood by consumers as meaning that colon hydrotherapy could relieve symptoms of IBS, which would be seen as meaning that it could treat those symptoms. We noted that IBS could involve a range of different symptoms, and in the absence of further information, consumers were likely to understand that the therapy was effective in treating all of those symptoms. We therefore expected to see evidence to support that. The NICE guidance explicitly discouraged reflexology and acupuncture as IBS therapies. However, we did not consider that meant that all other complementary therapies were recommended. While we understood from the NICE guidance that rectal irrigation should be considered for specialised management of the specific symptom of faecal incontinence in distinct circumstances, it was not listed as a treatment option for all IBS symptoms. To substantiate the claim that colon hydrotherapy could treat the symptoms of IBS, we expected to see clinical trial evidence. However, The Detox Clinic did not provide any clinical trial or documentary evidence to support that claim. Because we had not seen sufficient evidence that colon hydrotherapy could help treat all symptoms of IBS, we therefore concluded that the ad was misleading and had not been substantiated. On that point the ad 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 ad for a health clinic was banned for misleadingly stating that ozone therapy could successfully treat Covid-19 and for stating that colon hydrotherapy could treat IBS without holding sufficient evidence to support the claim. The ad must not appear again in the form complained of. We … Covid … -19 unless