The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) has published a ruling against an online pharmacy’s “advertorial article” on Mumsnet for failing to make clear it was a “marketing communication”.
Published yesterday, it said that the article – which Health Bridge (Zava) paid Mumsnet to publish as part of a commercial agreement – “went beyond factual clinical information and promoted Zava’s services”.
Because of this, the ASA challenged whether the story “was obviously identifiable as a marketing communication”.
Read more: Social posts advertising weight loss jabs via affiliate links banned
While the article contained Zava’s logo and text saying that it was “created by Zava”, the text was “small in comparison to the heading and appeared further down the page”, the ASA said.
The article also “did not contain any label or identifier, such as ‘advertisement feature’, to make clear upfront” that it was marketing, it added.
In light of this, the ASA concluded that this did not make it “sufficiently clear” or “obviously recognisable” that the piece was a marketing communication.
Promoted POMs
The ASA also challenged whether the article promoted a prescription-only-medicine (POM) to the public.
It acknowledged that the ad “did not name a specific POM active ingredient or POM” but found that “some of the text focused specifically on the use of weight-loss POMs”.
Read more: ASA weight loss jab ad triple ban for ‘targeting body insecurities’
It considered that descriptions such as “a medically supervised route rather than over-the-counter” and “prescription-based treatments”, along with other text, promoted POMs.
The ASA also highlighted that it “sought advice” from the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA), who expressed concern that the use of the term GLP-1s in the article could “likely lead a member of the public to request a POM”.
It concluded that the article “promoted POMs to the public” and “used a health professional to endorse medicines” but acknowledged that Zava had removed the ad from Mumsnet.
“Non-biased”
In Zava’s response to the ASA, it explained that its contract with Mumsnet “demonstrated that the article was not initially intended as an ad”.
The online pharmacy “believed the information in the article was factually correct and non-biased, and that the clinical content provided a holistic view of weight management rather than promoting a specific medication”, the ruling said.
Mumsnet told the ASA that it believed “the label ‘created by Zava’...signalled to users that the article was created as part of a commercial partnership rather than an independent editorial”.
Read more: ‘Crystal clear’: ASA bans ‘indirect’ weight loss jab advertising
Zava told C+D that it was “disappointed by the ruling” but was “committed to being a responsible and compliant healthcare organisation that follows regulation and guidance from the ASA”.
“Following discussions with the ASA, we continue to reflect on the guidance we provide to patients and our internal processes, with the aim of supporting the ASA’s wider efforts to reduce the risk of inadvertent non-compliant advertising within the healthcare sector,” it said.
And Mumsnet told C+D that “the content in question was removed”, adding that it has “subsequently reviewed how sponsored content is labelled to ensure it is clearly identifiable to readers”.
Read more: ASA ‘confident’ it can tackle online POM advertising
It comes after the ASA issued its first rulings against social media posts from members of the public found to be promoting weight loss medicines through “affiliate links”.
Meanwhile, the ASA banned weight loss injection ads from three online pharmacies in December for “targeting body insecurities”.
