The complaint challenged the ad on four points, of which two were upheld by the Advertising Standards Authority.
The advertiser was Pentoc, trading as Advanced Hair Studio. It claimed that if offered two techniques, Advanced Laser Therapy and Strand-by-Strand, which are exclusive to it. The ASA was not sent evidence that Advanced Laser Therapy was exclusive and had previously told the advertiser not to the use the claim. It concluded the claim was misleading and told Pentoc to amend it.
The second point upheld concerned the lack of clarity over whether Gooch and Leicester and former England rugby player Austin Healey had had their hair regrown or replaced.
The advertiser said that Gooch's hair had been replaced and Healey's hair was regrown. It said it was widely known that Gooch had used the Strand-by-Strand procedure and that Austin Healey had used Advanced Laser Therapy.
The ASA concluded that the ad implied that Gooch's hair had regrown and told the advertiser to make it clear in future whether persons featuring in advertisements had had their hair replaced or regrown.
In July last year, the ASA upheld two complaints about a different ad for Advanced Hair Studio, also featuring Austin Healey. It has upheld complaints about three other Advanced Hair Studio ads since 2000.
If you have an opinion on this or any other issue raised on Brand Republic, join the debate in the Forum here.