Print This Post
Product: Health & Beauty
Advertiser: Therapie Clinic
Medium: Online - Company Website
ASAI Code 7th Edition: 2.4(c), 3.10, 4.1, 4.4, 4.9, 4.10
The online advertisement featured images of various pairs of legs.
The strapline read:
“Laser Hair Removal Women
Browse our extensive range of laser hair removal services for women.”
The advertisement then posed the following question and answer:
“WHAT IS LASER HAIR REMOVAL?
Laser Hair Removal is a safe and effective way of removing unwanted hair, permanently. The way it works is simple. Light is absorbed by melanin, the pigment in the hair follicle. The laser’s light energy heats the pigment and destroys the hair follicle. It only affects the specific structures of the hair and follicle, leaving the surrounding skin undamaged. Thérapie Clinic only use medical grade lasers, the most advanced technology available, which safely deliver superior results and faster treatment times.
• Treat All Skin Types
• Affordable Prices
• Most Advanced Technology
• Cynosure Medical Grade Lasers
• Highly Trained Team
• Payment Plans available.
LOWEST PRICE GUARANTEE.”
The advertisement then featured a diagram of a woman and outlined all the various areas of the body which could be treated by laser hair removal.
The advertisement then posed a second question and answer:
“WHY THÉRAPIE CLINIC?
Thérapie Clinic are the trusted leaders in Laser Hair Removal, having delivered more than a million treatments to our clients throughout our wide network of clinics across Ireland and the UK.
We use only medical-grade lasers, the most advanced technology available. This means we can guarantee successful results. Although we recommend a course of six treatments, a significant difference will be apparent after just two or three. Our experienced therapists will consider your skin and hair type before creating a personalised treatment plan.”
The complainant raised two issues in relation to the advertisement.
The complainant challenged the statements “complete hair removal” and “guaranteed successful results in fewer sessions”.
The complainant said that having completed her six-week sessions, she had not achieved complete hair removal. She was informed that the reason for this was because her hair was too light in colour. She was also informed that she would need further sessions despite the advertisement indicating that ‘fewer session’ would be required.
The complainant considered that if the treatment did not work as efficiently on lighter coloured hair, this should have been stated in the advertisement.
The complainant also challenged whether the sale prices were cheaper than the standard prices.
The advertisers failed to provide a response to the complaints.
The Complaints Committee considered the detail of the complaint and expressed concern at the advertisers’ failure to respond to the complaint. They reminded them that there is an onus on advertisers to ensure that their advertising is in conformity with the Code.
In the absence of a response from the advertisers, the Committee concluded that the advertisement was in breach of Code sections 3.10, 4.1, 4.4, 4.9 and 4.10.
The advertising should not run again in its current format.