Advertising Standards AuthorityThe Top Navigation and Site Search section:
AAAAHomeAccessibilityCymraegSite MapContact UsSearch our web siteSearch
Banner Feature:
Skip Navigation LinksMain Navigation
About ASANews and eventsAdjudicationsOld Broadcast RulingsFocus OnAdvertising CodesResearchAnnual ReportLinksKeep Me InformedHow to ComplainContact UsCareer OpportunitiesSearchPrivacy PolicyAccessibilityVisit the CAP web site.
Non-broadcast Adjudications
Belgravia Trichological Group t/a The Belgravia Centre
52 Grosvenor Gardens LondonSW1
Adjudication details. (Date, media type, sector and origin)-->
Date:
27th September 2006
Media:
Regional press
Sector:
Health and beauty
Complaint(s) from:
London
Complaint type:
Industry
Complaint
A press ad, for The Belgravia Centre, was headed "Hair loss? It's just not an option for one of Britain's top male models". It went on to claim "Belgravia's FDA approved treatment courses are proven to not only work more effectively than other treatments but are very reasonably priced ...". Consultant Trichologist Dr D Hugh Rushton believed the ad was misleading because it implied the treatments: 1. were approved or endorsed by the FDA and 2. were more effective than other treatments.
Codes section:
3.1,
7.1,
14.5,
19.1,
50.1Adjudication
The Belgravia Centre said that they were no longer using the ad. 1. Complaint upheld The Belgravia Centre said they used Propecia and Minoxidil, products approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), as part of their treatment courses. They said they had emphasised the FDA approval in their ad because they believed some other hair treatment companies advertised products with no official approval and no efficacy. They said, as far as they were aware, no other hair loss product had gained FDA approval. The ASA noted that the FDA had granted a license for the treatment of male pattern hair loss to Propecia and Minoxidil. However, we considered that the claim "Belgravia's FDA approved treatment courses ..." implied that the treatment courses themselves were FDA approved, rather than just an element of them. We concluded that the claim was misleading and told the Belgravia Centre not to use it again. On this point, the ad breached CAP Code clause 7.1 (Truthfulness) and 14.5 (Testimonials and endorsements). 2. Complaint upheld The Belgravia Centre believed Minoxidil and Propecia were proven to be the most effective treatments for hair loss and had undergone substantial clinical trials to gain FDA approval. They supplied us with reports of clinical trials on the two products. They said their treatment courses also included additional stimulants and therapies to enhance hair growth. We noted the clinical trials were based around efficacy as opposed to the effectiveness of the products in comparison with other hair loss products or treatments. We also noted that the FDA approved products were only part of the treatment courses offered by The Belgravia Centre. We received no evidence to support the effectiveness of the other elements of the courses. We considered the claim "Belgravia's ... treatment courses are proven to not only work more effectively than other treatments ..." had not been substantiated and the ad was therefore misleading. On this point, the ad breached CAP Code clauses 3.1 (Substantiation), 7.1 (Truthfulness) and 19.1 (Comparisons).
back topAdvertising Standards Authority,Mid City Place, 71 High Holborn, London, WC1V 6QT, United Kingdom
//
