The ASA rulings form part of a wider piece of work on rehab clinic referral companies by EMCAT
- emcat55
- Dec 18, 2024
- 3 min read
Updated: Jan 17
EMCAT appreciates the ASA's thorough investigation into misleading advertising practices within the addiction treatment sector. We recognise the challenge of addressing these issues on a case-by-case basis but wish to emphasise that the examples provided represent only a small sample of the widespread misrepresentation endemic to the sector.
The complaints referenced were drawn from a narrow selection of website pages and directory listings, but the practices they highlight—misleading claims, a lack of transparency regarding referral fees, and the deliberate obscuring of services—are pervasive across entire platforms and business models.
These systemic issues go beyond isolated advertisements. They reflect an intentional effort to obscure the true nature of the service provided, leaving vulnerable individuals at significant risk.
Which Rehab Ltd – 4 breaches CAP Code (Edition 12) 2.3 3.1 3.50 3.51
A website for a rehab clinic referral company falsely implied that they were acting for purposes outside their business, that they provided treatment directly at clinics they operated, that they had a direct relationship with insurers and that they had been approved by a public body.
Action Rehab – 4 breaches CAP Code (Edition 12) 1.7 2.3 3.50 3.51
A website for a rehab clinic referral company falsely implied that they were acting for purposes outside their business, that they owned clinics and that they had been approved by a public body. It also failed to make clear that they received a commission for their service.
Help 4 Addiction Ltd – 3 breaches CAP Code (Edition 12) 2.3 3.1 3.7
A website for a rehab clinic referral company falsely implied that they were acting for purposes outside their business, that they provided treatment directly at clinics they operated and that a local rehab facility could be accessed using their website. It also didn’t make clear that they received commission for their service.
Serenity Rehabilitation Ltd t/a Serenity Addiction Centres – 3 breaches CAP Code (Edition 12)
2.3 3.50 3.51
A website for a rehab clinic referral company falsely implied that they were acting for purposes outside their business, that they provided treatment directly at clinics they operated and that they had been approved by a public body and also failed to make clear that they received a commission for their service.
UK Addiction Treatment Ltd t/a UKAT – 2 breaches CAP Code (Edition 12) 2.3 3.1
A website for a rehab clinic referral company falsely implied that they were acting for purposes outside their business and misleadingly suggested that their service was impartial and that they offered professional counselling treatment.
Addiction Recovery Systems Ltd t/a Rehab Guide – 1 breach CAP Code (Edition 12) 2.3
A website for a rehab clinic referral company falsely implied that they were acting for purposes outside their business and that they provided treatment directly at clinics they operated and also failed to make clear that they received a commission for their service.
Rehabs.uk – 1 breach CAP Code (Edition 12) 2.3
A website for a rehab clinic referral company falsely implied that they were acting for purposes outside their business and that they provided treatment directly at clinics they operated and also failed to make clear that they received a commission for their service.
Compare Rehab - 2 breaches CAP Code (Edition 12) 2.3 3.1
The ad must not appear again in its current form. We told Marren Healthcare Ltd t/a Compare Rehab to ensure that future marketing materials did not falsely imply they were acting for purposes outside their business, not to imply that they owned clinics if they did not, and to make clear that they were a referral company that received commission for their service. In addition, they should not make claims that local rehab centres could be accessed using their website, if that was not the case.
Comments