Description:
The advertiser’s website discussed the severe side effects that often result from taking a certain prescription drug and that most people avoid taking the drug due to its negative side effects being so severe. Instead, the advertisement suggests, people should make changes to their diet, such as consuming a certain food ingredient – which is also present in the advertiser’s product – to naturally help them with this medical condition.
Complaint:
The complainant alleged the advertisement was misleading because it made incorrect and unverifiable statements about the effect of a prescription drug on a certain medical condition. Furthermore, the advertisement uses fear-mongering as a scare tactic to encourage people to try the advertiser’s product instead, thereby avoiding potentially much-needed medical treatment.
Response:
In its response to Council, the advertiser confirmed that the language used in the advertising copy at issue had been amended to address the concerns challenged by the complainant.
Decision:
Council appreciated the advertiser’s response and considered the complaint together with the advertiser’s submissions.
In their discussions, Council members unanimously held that the advertisement played upon fears to mislead consumers, in contravention of Clause 11 of the Code. According to Council, the language used in the advertisement embellished the likelihood and severity of the prescription drug’s side effects. In Council’s view, the advertisement implied that people who take the prescription drug were more likely than not to experience these severe side effects, which would create doubt and concern in the minds of consumers who would then choose to take the advertised product to deal with their medical condition instead.
One Council member noted that “most” means “greater than 50% or even more than that” so by using such strong terms as “often” and “most”, the representation creates fear because it implies that these severe side effects are inevitable, which then outweighs the benefits of the prescription drug.
Furthermore, given no competent or reliable evidence was provided to Council for their consideration in support of the claim, as required under Clause 1(e) of the Code, Council unanimously found a contravention of this clause.
Infraction:
Clause 1(e), Clause 11
