New ruling issued about hair loss medication advertising
The ASA has issued its ruling on a case involving the website numan.com; Numan is a company providing treatment for men’s health issues. Four issues, seen on the website on April 20 2022, were investigated by the Council, all of which were upheld.
Firstly, the complainant, a GP, who understood that the tests could produce false positives, challenged whether a claim on the Numan website, “FREE if we don’t find anything”, misleadingly implied that there was something medically wrong if a biomarker was outside of the normal reference range.
The ASA also challenged whether:
- The claim “FREE if we don’t find anything” was misleading because consumers had to pay for the test upfront and because it was unclear how many people would be eligible for the “free” test.
- The advert was misleading because the price of the test was material information that was only provided after consumers provided personal information.
- The advert was misleading because it did not make sufficiently clear that by purchasing the test, consumers would be enrolling in a paid-for subscription.
Vir Health Ltd t/a Numan’s response to the challenge can be viewed in full on the ASA website, but its defence included: that the laboratory that it used was fully accredited and approved by UKAS to ensure the most reliable results. Plus, it was made clear at the first possible opportunity that the test must be paid for upfront, with a refund potentially being available following result delivery.
The company also argued that consumers had ample opportunity to consider the price of the test before making a transactional decision at the checkout and that it was made clear to consumers that they were enrolling in a subscription arrangement of quarterly payments.
However, Vir Health Ltd t/a Numan did acknowledge that the term “free” should not have been used in the context of a money-back offer and that they would stop using it. The company also recognised that it could provide material information at an earlier stage of the consumer journey and make the subscription enrolment arrangement clearer. It stated it would be implementing those changes.
In the ruling, all four claims of misleading information were upheld by the ASA.
On the first count, this was because the committee agreed that the claim implied that a biomarker outside the normal range indicated that something was likely to be medically wrong when that was not the case. Thus, Vir Health Ltd t/a Numan was deemed to have breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1 (Misleading advertising), 3.7 (Substantiation) and 3.9 (Qualification).
For the second, the claim “FREE if we don’t find anything” breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1 (Misleading advertising), 3.7 (Substantiation), 3.9 (Qualification) and 3.23 (Free). For the third, the advert had omitted material information regarding the price of the test; on this point, it breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1, 3.3, 3.4 and 3.4.3 (Misleading advertising). And finally, the fourth issue breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1 and 3.3 (Misleading advertising).
For this reason, the adverts must not appear again in the form complained about. In particular, the ASA has informed Vir Health Ltd t/a Numan that it cannot imply that there was something medically wrong on the basis that one biomarker was outside of the normal reference range.
The company was also told that it could not claim that the test was free if the consumer had to pay for it upfront; it could not omit material information, including the price of the test; and it must make clear upfront that by purchasing the test they would be enrolled in a paid-for subscription.