Advertising Standards Authority Results

This is a list of our Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) complaints and their outcomes.

There are essentially two ways the ASA deals with complaints:

Formal investigation, leading to an adjudication being published;
Informally resolved case, where only the advertiser's name and basic details are published.

However, some complaints are dealt with by their Compliance Team with no details being published on the ASA's website.

Note that it is the ASA that decides whether any complaint is valid or not and it is the ASA that assesses the evidence and decides the outcome according to the criteria laid down in the CAP Code and their procedures.

We have no say in deciding these outcomes. Note also that any decision an advertiser makes about the future of their business or how they choose to conduct it after any complaint is entirely a matter for them.

The dates refer to the dates of publication of the adjudications or informally resolved case.

We will update this list as new complaints are published.

Summary

In summary:

18 upheld adjudications
3 partly upheld adjudications
1 not upheld adjudication
24 informally resolved cases
95 issues investigated
264 instances of CAP Code breached identified
20 instances of CAP Code not breached identified
70 breaches of CAP Code 3.1 Misleading advertising
67 breaches of CAP Code 3.7 Substantiation (ie where the advertiser was unable to substantiate the claims made)
86 breaches of the CAP Codes on medical claims

The following chart shows the various sections of the CAP Code and the number of points found to be in breach and not in breach of these sections, as identified by the ASA. It also includes the number of informally resolved cases.

ASA Summary 12 August 2015

Adjudications

Adjudications are published when the ASA has decided to investigate the complaint formally and ask the advertiser for evidence to substantiate the claims made. The adjudication details the issues identified by the ASA, details of the advertiser's response, the ASA's assessment of that response and its decision, citing any CAP Codes that have been breached. The Nightingale Collaboration is always identified as the complainant.

Royal London Hospital for Integrated Medicine

University College London Hospitals: Medical and Clinical Hypnosis 09 January 2013

University College London Hospitals: Acupuncture 12 June 2013

University College London Hospitals: Western Herbal Medicine 23 October 2013

What Doctors Don’t Tell You

Radiant Life Technologies 12 December 2012

Medical Thermal Imaging Ltd 09 January 2013

Stetzer Electric Inc 16 January 2013

Good Health Naturally 16 January 2013

BEP Technology Ltd 06 February 2013

Dulwich Health Ltd 06 February 2013

Harmony United Ltd 13 February 2013

International Antiaging Systems Ltd 13 February 2013

Dulwich Health Ltd 27 February 2013

Bicom UK LLP 28 January 2015

Life Long Products 27 May 2015

Homeopathy: Medicine for the 21st Century

Homeopathy: Medicine for the 21st Century 03 July 2013

Homeopathy

Ainsworths (London) Ltd 27 July 2011

Although the following two complaints were not made by the Nightingale Collaboration, they were instigated by the ASA as a result of our homeopathy campaign.

Steve Scrutton Homeopathy 08 August 2012

Society of Homeopaths 03 July 2013

Again, this complaint was not made by us, but is relevant in light of the one above.

Steve Scrutton Homeopathy 18 September 2013

Informally resolved cases

Informally resolved cases are when the ASA have taken the matter up informally with the advertiser, who has then agreed to withdraw or amend the advert. For these, no details of complaint other than the name of the advertiser, the type of publication and the category are published by the ASA.