Monthly Archives: May 2011

Weekly ASA adjudications, grace periods and blogging

I’m not sure blogging in detail about the weekly ASA adjudications (and informally resolved cases) is the best use of my time for various reasons: Continue reading

Solar Health Ltd and the Advertising Standards Authority

As mentioned here, I complained to the ASA about Solar Health back in March, as part of a batch of complaints about practitioners of Live Blood Analysis. Solar Health also carry out a range of other ‘complementary therapies’ about which I believed they were also making misleading claims on their website. So I complained about those too.

The case has been ‘informally resolved’ today. I’ve just checked the Solar Health website and I’m pleased to report that¬† efficacy claims and references to serious medical conditions have vanished. There are still a couple of things on there I’m not sure about but I’ll leave it for now while they finish updating their website (it has only changed either today or yesterday) and see how it looks in a few weeks.

Magical headlouse repelling badge ad still online despite ASA adjudication (UPDATE: Headlice site down as of 10th May)

(UPDATE: The Maperton Trust Headlice site was taken down on 10th May so my links are broken. My original post remains below for information/archive purposes.)

(UPDATE 12/08/11: The Maperton Trust has ceased trading. Details of how this came about are on the 21st Floor blog)

As I wrote here, the Maperton Trust have been told by the ASA to remove all claims their unicorn badge can repel headlice from their website. The central problem appears to be that they cannot substantiate their claims without a comprehensive understanding of the technology involved in space travel. Continue reading

Weekly ASA adjudications: Dorset primary school trials magic badge & several misleading claims still online

As I was away last week, I’m considering adjudications from both today and last Wednesday (27th April).

I’m dismayed to see several instances of companies continuing to make misleading claims online after having adjudications against them. It could be that they are using a foreign website, a slightly different website to that complained about, or that the original complaint was not about online advertising. Continue reading