ASA Adjudication on Optical Express Ltd

Ad

An e-mail containing an offer for laser eye surgery stated “Optical Express has more experience and provides better results than anyone else in Europe.”

Issue

Ultralase challenged whether the claim: "Optical Express has more experience and provides better results than anyone else in Europe" could be substantiated.

CAP Code (Edition 11)

Response

Optical Express Ltd (Optical Express) said they had based the claim that Optical Express had more experience than anyone else on the volume of procedures carried out by them compared to the other two main European providers of laser eye surgery, of which the complainant, Ultralase, was one. They said they had obtained the comparative figures from their competitors' websites. They believed the more surgeries one performed, the more experienced it was reasonable to say one was. They said, logically, because they had carried out more laser eye surgery procedures than any other operator in Europe, that this made them more experienced than anyone else. They argued that, furthermore, they had a greater number of ophthalmologists retained in Europe than their competitors and, combined with the number of procedures carried out, this made Optical Express more experienced than any other operator in Europe with respect to carrying out laser eye surgery. In addition, they said they had an International Medical Advisory Board to advise on developments in laser eye surgery, best practice and to review and update their procedures and practices, whereas no other operator had the equivalent.

They said the claim that Optical Express provided better results than anyone else in Europe was based on the fact that they were the only multiple provider to have their results independently assessed by a leading clinical auditing company. They believed their competitors either were not independently audited or were not audited by clinically qualified entities. They said they published detailed results of patient satisfaction surveys and, in 2009, 97% rated their experience as excellent or good. They said that, although the claim was not intended to make a statement about what might be achieved for any one individual, over 99.2% of patients achieved 20/20 vision or better, whereas Ultralase claimed only 99%. They said they were also the only multiple provider to use the superior VISX STAR S4 IR laser platform combined with the latest iFS 150 Intralase technology in every one of their clinics. They believed their competitors used older IntraLase technology.

Optical Express said that, because they performed more treatments than any other provider in Europe, they had more patients achieving better than 20/20 vision. They sent a number of supporting documents.

Assessment

Upheld

The ASA understood that the three largest providers of laser eye surgery in Europe were Optical Express, the complainant Ultralase, and Optimax. We understood Ultralase's business dated from 1999 and that they had previously traded, from 1991, as The Corneal Laser Centre. We understood that Optimax had been founded in 1991, and that Optical Express dated from 1995. Therefore, by age, Ultralase and Optimax could argue they were the more experienced companies. However, we acknowledged that Optical Express believed they had more experience than their competitors because of the number of retained ophthalmologists in Europe working for them and because of the number of procedures they carried out and considered that consumers would not be misled on those grounds.

In relation to the claim "Optical Express... provides better results than anyone else in Europe" we noted Optical Express' contention that, because they performed more treatments, they had more patients achieving better than 20/20 vision than their competitors. However, we noted that was a question of size rather than an absolute result, whereas the claim was likely to be interpreted to mean that Optical Express would achieve a better result for any one individual than their competitors. We considered readers would understand from the claim "provides better results than anyone else in Europe" that they would obtain a better result with Optical Express than with its competitors. Because we had not seen independent and directly comparable clinical evidence to show that, we concluded Optical Express had not justified the claim.

We reminded Optical Express that, where their competitors were identified in comparative advertising, either directly or by implication, they should ensure they objectively compared one or more material, relevant, verifiable and representative features of their products and should include a means by which the claims could be verified (such as an address to write to for that information).

The ad breached CAP Code clauses 3.1 (Substantiation), 7.1 (Truthfulness) and 18.1 and 18.3 (Comparisons).

Action

The ad must not appear again in its current form.

Adjudication of the ASA Council (Non-broadcast)