The slap firm claimed to have discovered a link between accelerated skin ageing and exposure to 'artificial electromagnetic waves generated by the modern world' and that electromagnetic waves, generated by modern day devices or domestic communications equipment, could damage or age skin.

Clarins made unsubstantiated anti-ageing and pro-health efficacy claims for the product, says the ASA ruling, including the claim that the cream had 'Anti-Electromagnetic Wave' properties. The ASA concluded that evidence submitted by Clarins was not enough to substantiate the claim that electromagnetic waves generated by mobile phones posed a hazard to the skin.

Part of the ad read:

"If electromagnetic waves can penetrate walls, imagine what they can do to your skin. Today, electromagnetic waves generated by a host of modern day electronic devices join a list of well-known pollutants which can damage skin. For the first time, Clarins Research reveals the link between exposure to artificial electromagnetic waves and accelerated skin ageing. Clarins introduces Expertise 3P (Poly Pollution Protection).

"Clarins Expertise 3P Exceptional plant extracts with super-adapting powers against all types of pollution: Thermus Thermophillus from the ocean and Rhodiola Rosea from Siberia. Together with free radical fighters, White Tea and Succory Dock-Cress, they form an advanced anti-pollution complex to help maintain skin's health and beauty. Innovative skin protection for today's world."

Underneath the text was a photograph of a bottle of the product carry a label saying 'Anti-Electromagnetic Waves & Urban Pollution Screen Mist'.

The ASA found Clarins guilty of a number of breaches of ad. guidelines including truthfulness, substantiation and fear and distress. It also pointed out that no mention was made of other domestic equipment such as radios, TVs, microwave ovens and laptops that also emitted electromagnetic waves.

The ASA criticised evidence submitted by Clarins which was based on exposure to radiation from a simulated mobile phone for six hours and other studies used a constant 24-hour exposure, pointing out that neither of those time periods were "representative of typical consumer experience" and that mobile phones would age, if anything, only a very small area of the body's skin around the ear and were also likely to affect only one side of the face, yet there was no evidence of such ageing effects on consumers, despite mobile phones, "having been popular for some time". µ

L'Inq
ASA ruling