ASA Rulings, Summary - Bright Lights, Fine Art, and Full Glasses

In this post, we discuss the ASA's recent rulings clamping down on misleading medicinal claims for LED face masks; promotions and price comparisons in relation to alcohol; and advertisements for art investment. These rulings underscore the importance of clarity to prevent misleading claims and ensure consumers fully understand what is being offered.

 

Left in the Dark: LED masks and medicinal claims

What was complained about? An advertisement on Meta showed a woman using an LED face mask, with a caption claiming that wearing the mask helped treat acne and scars. The hair and skincare retailer also posted on their website an image of an LED face mask with text below stating that using the mask would effectively reduce acne-related redness. The ASA challenged the medicinal claims the retailer made for an unauthorised product.

What was the ruling? Upheld. The retailer stated that the ad was created by a user of the product based on her experience after prolonged use. The advertiser also argued that while the term “acne” was a medicinal claim, they did not believe the term “acne-related redness” to be medicinal, as they intended it to indicate cosmetic benefits rather than the treatment of a medical condition.

The ASA, in consultation with the MHRA, confirmed that “general claims to treat redness related to acne” constituted a medicinal claim. As there was no evidence that the product was registered with the MHRA, the ad breached CAP Code rule 12.1.

Ramifications? The ASA has been increasingly clamping down on medicinal claims made by lifestyle, health, beauty, and weight-loss advertisers. Advertisers should remember that the ASA's definition of “medicinal” is broad claims referring to a medical diagnosis or suggesting that a product can treat or prevent disease, injury, ailment, or adverse condition must not be made unless the product is authorised by the MHRA.

 

Uncorking the Truth: where does your wine come from?

What was complained about? An online wine retailer ran two promotional emails and a paid Instagram ad. The Instagram ad included claims about the origin of their wine, including specific provenance. The emails also featured price comparisons, showing 80% savings and other promotional statements referring to “declassified wines” described as “the same wine” as those sold by famous châteaux, but for savings of “95%+”.

What was the ruling? Upheld. The ASA noted that while top châteaux sometimes declassify surplus wine, marketing those wines as “the same” was misleading. Consumers would interpret “the same” as identical or materially equivalent to the flagship wine made by such châteaux. The advertiser provided no evidence to substantiate that claim.

Regarding price comparisons, the ASA found that although the advertiser provided information to verify the comparisons on their app, this was not stated in the marketing email itself, and the email was not space constrained.

Ramifications? Comparative phrases such as “the same as” are interpreted strictly by the ASA. Advertisers should only make comparisons with like-for-like products. Discontinued products, products of different quality, or products made exclusively for discount retailers should not be advertised comparatively, including using techniques such as “was £X, now £Y” unless differences are clearly stated.

When making comparisons in ads, those comparisons must be verifiable. While this information can generally be “one click away”, this only applies where an ad is genuinely space constrained. Any such link for consumers to verify the comparison must also be prominent.

 

Art Investments: hidden risks behind the canvas

Recently, the ASA has published multiple rulings on art investment companies, identified for investigation following intelligence gathered by their Active Ad Monitoring system, which uses AI to proactively search for online ads that might break the rules.

What was complained about? Several art investment companies faced challenges from the ASA over advertisements that failed to clearly disclose key information about investment risks. The ASA found these ads misleading because they did not adequately inform consumers that the value of art investments can fluctuate, thereby breaching the CAP Code.

What was the ruling? Upheld. The physical art investment market is not regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) in the UK and does not benefit from protections such as the Financial Services Compensation Scheme or the Financial Ombudsman Service. The ASA considered this information material for consumers making investment decisions. Because the advertisements failed to disclose that art investment is unregulated, the ASA found the ads misleading.

The ASA noted that this information should have been included via a linked landing page. Under Section 14 of the CAP Code, which reflects FCA rules for regulated investments, marketing communications for unregulated financial products must clearly state that investment values can fluctuate and may decrease as well as increase, unless otherwise guaranteed.

Ramifications? Advertisers of unregulated investments must make clear that their products are unregulated and that the value of investments can go down as well as up. If the ad itself is space-constrained, this material information can be presented in an area that is “one click away” from the ad. However, this should always be prominent and “above the fold”.