False Advertising !
Israel's Media Watch has lodged a
complaint with the police asserting that the Israel Broadcasting
Authority committed violations of the Consumer's Protection Law
in transmitting false advertising for the Clinica-On impotency
treatment clinics.
IMW claims that the ads take advantage of patients' distress and make promises, such as results already at the first session, that are less than truthful. Letters from physicians were attached to the complaint attesting to the dangers in the false advertising claims.
PRIVATE EMBARRASSMENT - PUBLIC SHAME
by
YISRAEL MEDAD
Impotence can be a private embarrassment if it affects
one's intimate prowess. It is all the more distressing and
shameful if it becomes apparent that public bodies, charged with
protecting citizens' interests, may be suffering the same
symptoms.
The director of Radio Kol Israel, Amnon Nadav, decided on
February 3rd this year to halt broadcast advertising of two
clinics, Clinica-On and Clinica Ariel, that provide medical
treatment for men who suffer problems of inadequate sexual
performance. The reason proffered was the improper character of
thelanguage of the advertisements.
This decision followed a full half-year of repeated
complaints spearheaded by Israel's Media Watch. These complaints
were found to be justified not only as to the offensive nature of
the ads' contents but also the misleading medical claims
contained in the ads. Despite periods of frustration caused by
the delay in dealing with our complaints, which the Israel
Broadcasting Authority admitted were correct, it is partially
satisfying that we have succeeded in altering IBA policy. But we
demand more.
It is our opinion that the IBA should apologize to the
public for permitting the advertisements to go on for as long as
they did. This was a classic case of a violation of the
truth-in-advetising ethic and the IBA once again thought that as
a bureaucracy, it can outwait anything. In addition, the IBA must
take corrective positive steps to ensure that the public
understands that the ads were misleading and false. But we at IMW
were willing to be patient.
During the waiting period, we had turned to faraway Australia. There, a similar situation existed but the behavior of the responsible institutions was quite different. The Australian Competition & Consumer Commission turned to Federal Court in Sydney and sought an injunction against On-Clinic's owner, Jack Vaisman, whose brother, incidentally, owns the Israeli Clinica-On.
As a result of the deliberations, Justice Tamberlin halted
On-Clinic and two other clinics from making misleading claims in
their advertising as well as unqualified assertions of fact.
Furthermore, the clinics were ordered to place corrective
advertisements which must offer to refund any payments by
dissatisfied customers and provide a free-call number for this
purpose. In a related action, Vaisman pleaded guilty to 34 counts
of importing unregistered drugs for penile injections. The source
of the drugs was Israel.
This firm reaction by the consumer bodies and the willingness of the court to apply its authority is an illustration of the proper workings of a bureaucracy on behalf of its public. Despite a discussion on September 9, 1996 by the IBA's 7- member executive board, and the recommendation that a public council be established in cooperation with the Ministry of Health, nothing has happened.
Is the IBA at fault or the Health Ministry? Nevertheless,
why should the public suffer from inadequate safeguards and
procedures from those very institutions whose job it is to
protect the citizen from emotive, misleading ads that take
advantage of one's real or imagined problems?
More importantly, the Israel Medical Association joined us in our complaints and indicated that the ads exploited a situation of distress among a portion of the populace suffering a medical problem which carries with it a social stigma.
In their opinion, ramifications of the treatment could be,
at times, even dangerous. An outstanding urologist informed us of
his concern that instead of treating a patient as a whole, the
clinics were simply dealing with a localized problem separate
from a perhaps more serious overall health situation.
The ethics of media advertising have not been applied in this case. The law allows IBA's director-general to prohibit advertising language that is offensive.
We now know that was indeed the case for finally the radio
has canceled the clinics' air time. The fact that the
advertisements were misleading was attested to by Israel's
Medical Association. Yet no action was taken for over half a
year. The public council to supervise medical advertisements has
yet to take shape.
The example set by Australia, whereby a corrective ad was
published by the companies as well as an offer of a refund, has
been ignored here in Israel. That the IBA should be obliged to
issue an apology for their lack of actions, as Media Watch
demands, is elementary.
The pervasiveness of the electronic media is awesome. As
evidenced above, it invades even our bedrooms. But the right of
the citizen to assure responsible concern for media ethics is
itself quite a potent weapon, if used properly.
Israel's Media Watch is a non-partisan advocacy group concerned with the ethical and professional standards of the media in Israel.
Return to Home Page
Return to List of Papers
This page hosted by Geocities
Get
your own FreeHome
Page