Tanning Firms Face Ad Ban for Misleading Safety Claims

Ads from five tanning companies have been banned due to misleading claims about the safety of sunbeds. The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) identified problematic advertisements from The Sun Company, SunShine Co, Tanbox Towcester, Tan & Deliver Home Hire Sunbeds, and Byrokko, which markets tanning acceleration products. These ads incorrectly suggested that sunbed use is safe and that tanning could be achieved without risk, while also promoting claims about health benefits such as boosting vitamin D, improving mood and energy levels, and treating conditions like seasonal affective disorder (SAD), psoriasis, and eczema.

Concerns Over UV Exposure

The ASA detected these misleading advertisements using its AI-powered Active Ad Monitoring system. The rulings come at a time of heightened public health concerns regarding ultraviolet (UV) exposure and the ongoing popularity of tanning, particularly among younger demographics. Experts have pointed out that social media plays a significant role in normalizing the use of sunbeds, further complicating the public’s understanding of associated risks.

Long-term guidance from the NHS and Cancer Research UK emphasizes that there is no safe way to obtain a tan using UV radiation. In fact, Cancer Research UK warns that sunbeds emit high-intensity UV radiation, which can damage DNA in skin cells and significantly increase the risk of skin cancer, including melanoma, the most severe form. The ASA highlighted that excessive UV exposure is the third leading cause of cancer and the primary cause of skin cancer in the UK.

Regulatory Actions and Industry Responses

The ASA classified the ads from all five firms as irresponsible, stating they likely misled the public by downplaying the risks associated with sunbed use. Some advertisements even suggested that sunbeds could be used to manage medical conditions, potentially discouraging individuals from seeking appropriate medical advice or treatment. Consequently, the ASA has mandated that all five companies refrain from broadcasting these banned ads again. Future promotions must not imply that sunbeds are safe, offer health benefits, or serve as treatments for medical conditions.

Jess Tye, the ASA’s regulatory projects manager, stated, “Given the serious dangers of UV exposure, it’s vital that ads for sunbeds don’t suggest that they’re safe or offer health benefits. These rulings demonstrate that information about health in ads must be clear, accurate, and responsible.” She emphasized that the ASA’s core mission is to protect the public from misleading or irresponsible advertisements that pose health risks.

Each of the five firms has been approached for comment regarding the ASA’s ruling. The Sun Company acknowledged the decision, noting, “We acknowledge the ASA’s ruling in relation to an early social media post made shortly after opening. The specific content referenced in the ruling has been removed, and we have reviewed our advertising practices to ensure full compliance going forward. Customer transparency and regulatory compliance are important to us.”

As the debate over sunbed safety continues, the ASA’s decision serves as a critical reminder of the need for accurate health information in advertising.