Description:
Under the title, “How to Choose the Best Weighted Blanket for Autism”, the advertiser’s blog article appearing on its website makes various health claims about weighted blankets, including that they: offer a non-prescription drug alternative to sleep; provide deep pressure stimulation [which occupational therapists have used to treat autism spectrum disorder symptoms for many decades]; provide calming effects to a person suffering from attention deficit hyperactivity disorder; can help autism spectrum sleep problems; and, reduce/alleviate anxiety.
Complaint:
The complainant alleged the blog contained false claims about the efficacy of weighted blankets in relation to anxiety, autism and ADHD.
Response:
Although Ad Standards requested a response from the advertiser, there was no response sent to Council.
Decision:
In the absence of an advertiser response and based on their own due diligence, as necessary, Council discussed the information before them at length. According to Council, published studies note that use of weighted blankets for sleep disorders in those with autism remain experimental so to be cautious when relying on this type of intervention, as there are multiple reasons and contributing factors for sleep disturbances.
Notwithstanding this, Council noted, definitive language was used with many of the claims in the blog in terms of the benefits of these weighted blankets; such as, “WILL make it easier to fall asleep” and “WILL soothe the nervous system”. The blog stated, “the claims for its success are not baseless and are based on several research papers that can be found online”, but despite saying this, one Council member remarked, the blog does not link to any of them, which suggests the advertiser does not have them or they do not exist, because normally such links would serve to substantiate the claim.
In fact, several links provided throughout the blog appear to hyperlink to the advertiser’s website, including their other blogs, which, according to Council, indicates that either the advertiser has not conducted any relevant studies themselves, and/or there is no third party or external support substantiating the claims made throughout the blog.
In light of all of this, a majority of Council members held that the advertisement contained inaccurate, deceptive or otherwise misleading claims in contravention with Clause 1(a) of the Code. Furthermore, Council unanimously determined that the lack of competent and reliable evidence in support of the claims was not provided which resulted in a violation of Clause 1(e) of the Code.
Infraction:
Clause 1(a), Clause 1(e)
