Someone brought a complaint about their website to the ASA in the UK
http://www.asa.org.uk/Rulings/Adjudications/2013/9/Kaizen-Clinic-Ltd/SHP_ADJ_234860.aspx
(snip)
1. Upheld
The ASA noted the ad offered "The ME Cure Clinic Treatment Programme" and made multiple references to the ability of the treatment to cure ME. We also considered the references to the advertiser's name, the ME Cure Clinic, implied efficacy of the programme. In the absence of robust documentary evidence to demonstrate that the programme could cure ME, we concluded that the efficacy claims had not been substantiated and therefore breached the Code.
On this point, the ad breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1 (Misleading advertising), 3.7 (Substantiation) and 12.1 and 12.6 (Medicines, medical devices, health-related products and beauty products).
2. Upheld
The ad stated "The ME Clinic Guarantee Significant Improvement within 2 months" and "we are so confident of our success, we promise that if the ME Cure Clinic Treatment programme has not been able to significantly improve your condition within two months we will refund the cost of your treatment in full!". In conjunction with the further claims that the treatment could cure ME, we considered consumers would understand the references to the guarantee implied that the treatment guaranteed a cure for ME. Because we had not seen robust documentary to demonstrate that, we concluded that the references to the money back guarantee were likely to mislead.
On this point, the ad breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1 (Misleading advertising), 3.7 (Substantiation) and 12.1 and 12.6 (Medicines, medical devices, health-related products and beauty products).
((end))
http://www.asa.org.uk/Rulings/Adjudications/2013/9/Kaizen-Clinic-Ltd/SHP_ADJ_234860.aspx
(snip)
1. Upheld
The ASA noted the ad offered "The ME Cure Clinic Treatment Programme" and made multiple references to the ability of the treatment to cure ME. We also considered the references to the advertiser's name, the ME Cure Clinic, implied efficacy of the programme. In the absence of robust documentary evidence to demonstrate that the programme could cure ME, we concluded that the efficacy claims had not been substantiated and therefore breached the Code.
On this point, the ad breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1 (Misleading advertising), 3.7 (Substantiation) and 12.1 and 12.6 (Medicines, medical devices, health-related products and beauty products).
2. Upheld
The ad stated "The ME Clinic Guarantee Significant Improvement within 2 months" and "we are so confident of our success, we promise that if the ME Cure Clinic Treatment programme has not been able to significantly improve your condition within two months we will refund the cost of your treatment in full!". In conjunction with the further claims that the treatment could cure ME, we considered consumers would understand the references to the guarantee implied that the treatment guaranteed a cure for ME. Because we had not seen robust documentary to demonstrate that, we concluded that the references to the money back guarantee were likely to mislead.
On this point, the ad breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1 (Misleading advertising), 3.7 (Substantiation) and 12.1 and 12.6 (Medicines, medical devices, health-related products and beauty products).
((end))