• against Virbac for their advertising, which stated that Animal Welfare Organisations, and Veterinarians could read (and hence re-home animals), if they were implanted with BackHome microchips.

• against Virbac for their advertising which claimed the prestigious European "ISO 11785" endorsement for their V100 scanner.

• against Virbac for claiming the prestigious South African "SABS" endorsement for their V100 scanner.

• against Virbac for claiming that their V100 microchip scanner was able to read all FDX-A (Identipet™) microchips.

Identipet lodged a complaint against Virbac's print advertising. The claims as stated in each publication are as follows:

• Information to Veterinarians: "The BackHome V100 scanner is ISO standard and permits the reading of both FDX-A and FDX-B microchips (10 and 15 digit codes)."
• Letter to Veterinarians (26 February 2003): "The BackHome V100 scanner is also ISO standard and can read both FDX-A and FDX-B microchips (10 and 15 digit codes)."
• Virbac News (26 February 2003): "The FDX-B microchip is ISO standard and consists of a 15 digit microchip-code. The scanners available in the market include: scanners that can read only FDX-A or FDX-B and ISO recognised scanners that can read FDX-A and FDX-B (10 and 15 digit microchip-code)", and, "The Back Home V100 scanner…can read both 10 and 15 digit micro-chip codes CI50 standard."
• WODAC Brochure: "If the veterinary practice or the welfare organization has a ISO 11785 standard scanner (a scanner that can read all available microchips in the market) they will be able to read the microchip number."
• Vet News (June 2003): "This hand-size portable scanner is battery operated and is able to read both 10 and 15 digit microchip code numbers."
• Vetmed (February / March 2003): "This hand-size portable scanner is battery operated and is able to read both 10 and 15 digit microchip code numbers."
• Letter to Veterinarians (8 July 2003): "The facts are that the BackHome v100 scanner distributed by Virbac was designed to be a pocket-sized scanner compatible with ISO standard FDX-B microchips with the added advantage of compatibility with non-ISO standard FDX-A microchips".
• Letter to Veterinarians (15 September 2003): "The facts are that the BackHome v100 scanner distributed by Virbac was designed to be a pocket sized scanner compatible with ISO standard FDX-B microchips with the added advantage of compatibility with non-ISO standard FDX-A microchips".
• BackHome V100 Instruction Manual: "Backward compatible"
• BackHome V100 User Guide: "This reader can read ALL electronic identification microchips of the FDX-B type (conforming to the ISO norm 11784) as well as electronic identification microchips of the old FDX-A generation (Destron, Avid, and Trovan)".

COMPLAINT
According to the complainant, the respondent claims that the Virbac BackHome V100 scanner can read both FDX-A (10 digit) and FDX-B (15 digit) microchip numbers and is backward compatible. Identipet (Desron) microchips are FDX-A microchips and since certain series of implanted Identipet microchips are read partially or not at all by the V100 scanner, the claims are incorrect. The inference of the respondent's claims is that its BackHome V100 scanner is a universal scanner, and that the use of the complainant's scanners by microchip users is therefore unnecessary.

In support of its submissions, the complainant submitted reports from:

1. The Thoroughbred Breeders Association of South Africa (TBA); and
2. Dr David Gerber of the Faculty of Veterinary Science at the University of Pretoria.

Furthermore, the complainant requested that the respondent publish printed retractions.

THE THOROUGHBRED BREEDERS ASSOCIATION OF SOUTH AFRICA

The TBA said, inter alia, "Microchipping (and the identification) of horses plays a large part in the administrative side of the horse industry in South Africa… Two Virbac V100 microchip scanners were given to me to evaluate. I found them to be unsatisfactory for the following reasons:
1. The read range of the V100 is bad (in relation to the MPR reader, which we routinely use, and falls short of basic identification requirements.
2. The V100 regularly does not detect microchips in certain horses (4 to 5 per race meeting). This failure rate to detect chips is unacceptably high…
3. The V100 uses replaceable batteries, and in the event of a "non-read", the reason is unclear…"

DR GERBER AT THE FACULTY OF VETERINARY SCIENCE OF THE UNIVERSITY OF PRETORIA: READABILITY OF IDENTIPET (DESTRON) FDX-A WITH DIFFERENT SCANNERS

The report concluded, inter alia, that, "Since the Virbac Scanner also failed to read microchips from the newer generations (11% and 13 % for the "400" and the "500"-series respectively) it can be concluded that the Virbac BackHome Scanners are not suitable to reliably read Identipet™'s FDX-A (Destron) microchips."

RELEVANT CLAUSES OF THE CODE OF ADVERTISING PRACTICE
According to the complainant the following clauses of the Code are relevant for the reasons set out there under:

• Section I, Clause 1.1 - Legal, decent, honest and truthful:
  Due to the number of errors and untruths, the advertising would appear to have been compiled by a person or persons with inadequate background knowledge on the products, protocols, systems, standards, etc. so as to deliberately confuse, mislead and or misrepresent the products, systems, etc. that the respondent purports to advertise.
• Section I, Clause 1.2 - Responsibility:
  The representation of the advertisements deliberately plays on and exploits the lack of (or inadequate knowledge) or experience of the veterinarian and or the consumer. The effect of such an approach is to confuse, impress and or bewilder into acceptance, the blatant untruths.
• Section II, Clause 2 - Honesty:
  The advertisements contain untruths, half-truths and inaccuracies.
• Section II, Clause 4.1 - Substantiation:
  The respondent states blatant untruths in relation to facts, which can be shown (or measured) by reference to published studies, rules and or protocols to be false.

RESPONSE
Attorneys Bowman Gilfillan, on behalf of the respondent, submitted:

1. The complaint is frivolous and vexatious for the following reasons:

· as the "unassailable evidence" proffered by the complainant was in fact assailable and did not conclusively show that the BackHome V100 could not read FDX-A microchips, in that:

o The TBA letter is an unscientific letter, which states little more than an opinion; and
o The results of Dr Gerber's report are based on an unsubstantiated premise that a fat dog is similar to a marino ram and that a short haired dog is similar to a boer goat. In addition, the study was conducted in an inappropriate agricultural scenario and not in an appropriate clinical scenario. In any event, the study showed that the V100 BackHome scanner is able to read both FDX-A and FDX-B microchips. Subsequent to the report, Dr Gerber indicated that he could not confirm that the microchips used in the study were in fact FDX-A microchips.

2. The complaint is vague and embarrassing for the following reasons:

· The annexures to the complaint are not clearly marked and do not contain references to those portions of the respondent's advertising that the complainant had levelled allegations against;
· The complaint does not clearly set out the allegations against the respondent's advertising or the grounds for such allegations;
· The complaint refers to Sections and Clauses of the Code, without any clear indication as to why such Sections and Clauses have been referred to; and
· The complaint appears to require the respondent to respond to the inference that the complainant had drawn from the respondent's advertising, and to what the complainant believed was the intent behind the respondent's advertising.

3. The respondent submitted a "Transponder Comparison Study" conducted by the SABS, which confirmed that the BackHome V100 scanner was tested by the SABS on 26 June 2003 at the Veterinary Testing Laboratory in the Eastern Cape.

4. The respondent also submitted a study of the BackHome V100 scanner conducted by the Centre Technique Des Industries Mecaniques, which confirmed that the BackHome V100 scanner is compatible with FDX-A and FDX-B microchips.

ASA DIRECTORATE RULING
At a meeting held on 27 February 2004 the Directorate considered the relevant documentation submitted by the respective parties.

Prior to dealing with the merits of the matter, the Directorate addressed the respondent's submission that the complaint is either frivolous or vexatious.

The Directorate is of the view that the complaint is neither frivolous nor vexatious as the complaint is not whether the BackHome V100 scanner is able to read both FDX-A and FDX-B microchips; it is that the advertising implies that the V100 scanner is able to read all FDX-A microchips, including the complainant's. The Directorate would like to point out that the onus is not on the complainant to disprove claims made by the respondent but for the respondent to prove that the claims which are challenged are supported by evidence.

The respondent also alleged that the complaint is vague and embarrassing.

The Directorate is of the view that the complaint is neither vague nor emabarrasing, as the complainant has indicated the grounds on which the complaint is based in terms of each of the relevant clauses, and indicated which aspects of the advertising it believes to be in breach of the Code. The Directorate is therefore satisfied that the complaint clearly identifies both clauses and grounds and is neither vague nor embarassing.

Turning to the merits, the Directorate is of the opinion that the advertising material communicates two overall claims :

1. The BackHome V100 scanner can read both FDX-A and FDX-B type microchips
2. The BackHome scanner can read old FDX-A microchips

The Directorate notes that both the complainant, in its submissions from the Thoroughbred Breeders Association and Dr Gerber of the University of Pretoria, and the respondent, in its submissions from the SABS and the Centre Technique Des Industries Mecaniques, accept that the BackHome V100 scanner can read FDX-A and FDX-B microchips. It therefore appears to be common cause that the scanner can read both FDX-A and FDX-B chips.

As the claim "The BackHome V100 scanner is also ISO standard and can read both FDX-A and FDX-B microchips (10 and 15 digit codes)" is, however, unqualified, the impression created is that the BackHome V100 scanner can read all series of FDX-A microchips.

This does not, however, appear to be supported by the documentation submitted. The respondent argued that the number of FDX-A microchips that the V100 scanner cannot read is insignificant. In an email from Dr Gerber submitted by the respondent, however, Dr Gerber stated, "The scanner is made for the latter [ie FDX-A] chips models, but to accommodate the market it was designed in a way that it can also read the older FDX-A chips." The other documentation submitted by the respondent, and that submitted by the complainant, also fails to support that the V100 scanner can in fact read all series of FDX-A microchips. This is also apparent in the respondent's advertising, in the claim "This reader can read ALL electronic identification microchips of the FDX-B type (conforming to the ISO norm 11784) as well as electronic identification microchips of the old FDX-A generation (Destron, Avid, and Trovan)".

Given Dr Gerber's comments, and the fact that the documentation submitted by the respondent does not ex facie prove that the V100 scanner can read all series of FDX-A microchips, the unqualified claim that the scanner can read both FDX-A and FDX-B chips is unsubstantiated and accordingly in breach of Clause 4.1 of Section II.

As Dr Gerber confirmed that the BackHome V100 scanner is able to read the old FDX-A microchips, the claim "This reader can read ALL electronic identification microchips of the FDX-B type (conforming to the ISO norm 11784) as well as electronic identification microchips of the old FDX-A generation (Destron, Avid, and Trovan)" is qualified and appears ex facie to be supported by evidence.

The qualified claim that the V100 scanner can read old FDX-A microchips is therefore substantiated and accordingly not in breach of Clause 4.1 of Section II. The claim is therefore also not misleading and not in contravention of Clause 4.2.1 of Section II.

Given this, the respondent may only claim that the V100 scanner is able to read FDX-A microchips on condition that the claim is qualified to reflect that the scanner can only read the old FDX-A microchips. The respondent is therefore required to withdraw the advertising using the unqualified claim, with immediate effect, in its current format, within the deadlines stipulated in Clause 15.3 of the Procedural Guide, until such time as the respondent is able to submit documentary evidence to prove that the V100 scanner can read all series of FDX-A microchips, and this substantiation is evaluated and a new ruling is made.

The Directorate notes that the complainant also requested that the respondent publish printed retractions. No such sanctions in fact exists, although it appears that the complainant is requesting a sanction in terms of Clause 14 of the Procedural Guide. The complainant will be given an opportunity to motivate and clarify this request, whereafter the respondent shall be given an opportunity to comment prior to the ASA considering this issue.

19 March 2004

identipet* lodged a complaint against Virbac’s print advertising of its BackHome scanner.

• In a letter to Animal Welfare Organisations entitled “BackHome Electronic Identification”, dated 6 October 2003, the claim: “The BackHome scanner was tested at the SABS…” appears.
  
• In a letter to veterinarians entitled “Virbac’s BackHome is here to Stay”, dated 15 September 2003, the claim: “In addition, the SABS and the SAPS Veterinary Services tested these scanners” appears.

COMPLAINT
The complainant submitted the following:

• The respondent claims that the South African Bureau of Standards (SABS) has tested its BackHome scanner.
• The respondent uses the SABS name to support its scanner’s capabilities.
• The respondent makes claims, based on these SABS “tests”.
• The advertisements contain untruths, half-truths and inaccuracies with respect to the use of the SABS name and the prestigious implication of the SABS as a standards organisation.
• The use of the SABS name is intended deliberately to confuse, mislead and misrepresent the products and systems being advertised.
• The claim that the BackHome scanner was tested by the SABS is capable of substantiation.
• The advertisements play on and exploit the lack of (or inadequate) knowledge or experience of the veterinarian and/or the consumer.
• The complainant contacted the SABS to request copies of the test results, and the SABS was not able to locate such, nor indeed any such product submitted for testing.

The complainant submitted a letter that was sent to the respondent from the SABS, which stated, inter alia, “It has come to our attention that you make reference to the SABS having tested your products. According to our records your product/equipment was never tested at the SABS”.
The letter further drew attention to the position of Section 2(1) of the Standards Act 29 of 1993.

RELEVANT CLAUSES OF THE CODE OF ADVERTISING PRACTICE
According to the complainant the following clauses of the Code are relevant:

• Section I, Clause 1.1 - Legal, decent, honest and truthful
• Section I, Clause 1.2 - Responsibility
• Section II. Clause 2 - Honesty
• Section II, Clause 4.1 - Substantiation

RESPONSE
Attorneys Bowman Gilfillan, on behalf of the respondent, submitted:

• The SABS conducted a “Transponder Comparison Study”, which reflected that the BackHome V100 scanner was tested on 26 June 2003 at the Veterinary Testing Laboratory in the Eastern Cape.
  
• The claims in the advertisements are based on this study, and are lawful and honest.
  
• In the complaint, the complainant stated “Virbac’s non-cooperation has caused the SABS to hand the matter to the South African Polices Services’ Fraud Unit for investigation”. It is now common cause that this allegation is not true.

OPINION FROM SOUTH AFRICAN BUREAU OF STANDARDS (SABS)
The ASA requested the SABS’s comments regarding the use of the claims.

The SABS submitted that it objects to the use of the claims, as it only conducted a comparative study and not an SABS quality conformance test. The object of the study was to compare the readings of a transponder supplied by the respondent and that of the SABS’s own transponder. The study confirmed that both transponders gave the same readings. The results were submitted on a SABS letterhead and not as a SABS Test report.

ASA DIRECTORATE RULING
At a meeting held on 3 March 2004 the Directorate considered the relevant documentation submitted by the respective parties.

The Directorate notes that the respondent submitted a report from the SABS in support of the claims. The SABS, however, ex facie objects to the use of the claims, as it only conducted a comparative study and not an SABS quality conformance test.

The product has therefore been tested by the SABS. The reference to SABS testing, however, creates the impression of quality approval. It is for this reason that Clause 26 of Section III says that advertising copy which refers to a standardisation mark or a standards body such as the SABS shall not be acceptable unless previously approved in writing by that body. In this matter, the SABS has not given such approval.

The consumer has no knowledge, based on the advertising, of what was tested and of what those tests showed. The claims, “In addition, the SABS and the SAPS veterinary services tested these scanners…”, and “The BackHome scanner was tested at the SABS…” are therefore in breach of Clause 1.1 of Section I and Clause 2 of Section II.

The respondent is therefore required to withdraw the claims with immediate effect, in their current format, within the deadlines stipulated in Clause 15.3 of the Procedural Guide.

1 August 2003

Identipet lodged a complaint against Virbac’s BackHome print advertising, which appeared in the following publications and in which the following claims were made:

1. Communication to veterinarians:
   1. “The Back Home V100 Scanner ISO”
   2. “This standard (ISO 11785) permits either one way at the time signal permission ( half-duplex HDX) or simultaneous two-way signal transmission (Full Duplex: FDX). Any scanner must have the combination of the two systems to be ISO compliant”
   3. “BackHome V100 scanner is also ISO standard
   4. ”ISO standard V100 scanner”
   5. “Standard ISO 11785”
   6. “BackHome V100 scanner”
      
      
2. Dogwalk June / July 2003: “Scanner ISO 11785”
   
   
3. Virbac NEWS February 2003: “Standard ISO 11785
   
   
4. WODAC Show Brochure June 2003:
   1. “Special scanner (11785)”
   2. “BackHome V100 scanner “
   3. “If the veterinary practice or the welfare organization has a ISO 11785 standard scanner they will be able to read the microchip number.”
   4. “If the veterinary practice or welfare body have an ISO 11785 scanner it Read and show the BackHome microchip number”.
      
      
5. Vetmed February / March 2003:
   1. “Not only BackHome ISO standard”
   2. “V100 Scanner (ISO standard)”
   3. “The BackHome V100 scanner conforms to the ISO standard”
      
      
6. Vetmed April / May 2003: “Special scanner (ISO 11785)”
   
   
7. Vetnews June 2003:
   1. “The BackHome V100 scanner Conforms to the ISO standard”
   2. “V100 Scanner (ISO standard)”
      
      
8. Animal Talk June 2003: “Special Scanner (ISO 11785)”

1. There are various types of microchips available in the South African market: FDX-A, FDX-B (Full Duplex type A & B) and HDX (Half duplex) microchips. In order for a scanner to be ISO 11785 compliant, it must be able to read all three of these microchips. The FDX-A type is the “old generation” microchip and is not an ISO standard.
   
   
2. Both FDX-A and FDX-B microchips are used in small animals and pets while the HDX microchip is only used in large animals. The HDX microchip is of no relevance to the small animal and pet market and people concerned with the small animal and pet market will have no dealings with HDX microchips.
   
   
3. Virbac made a mistake in that the Virbac scanner cannot read HDX microchips and does not therefore meet the ISO 11785 standard. This mistake was not intentional and has caused no prejudice.

1. Since becoming aware of its mistake, it has desisted from publishing advertisements that claim that the Virbac BackHome scanner is ISO 11785 compliant, and has commissioned its advertisers to formulate fresh advertisements for publication in due course.
   
   
2. It has distributed information to veterinarians that state that Virbac BackHome scanners “are not ISO standard scanners” and set out precisely which microchips the Virbac BackHome scanner can read.

1. Veterinary practices and welfare organisations use the products supplied by the respondent.
2. The respondent's microchip is identifiable by most veterinary practices and welfare organisations.
3. Animals, which are taken to welfare organisations, will be re-homed using the Virbac System.

The complainant is of the view that the advertisement is misleading and untrue for the following reasons:

1. Most veterinary practices and welfare organisations utilise the scanners and the microchip provided by the complainant.
2. Most welfare organisations (and veterinary practices) are equipped with the complainant's scanners, which do not read the Virbac chips.
3. As a consequence, welfare organisations (and veterinary practices) are not able to identify animals, which have any other chip besides the complainant's.
4. There are no known welfare organisations with immediate access to the Internet (and consequently the Virbac website), to be able to re-home by this method (despite the implications of paragraph 2 above).
5. The homing process is also deliberately misleading, as a large number of homings from welfare organisations are outside regular office hours, for which purpose Virbac does not cater.

The complainant is further of the view that it has been prejudiced and has suffered harm and loss due to the advertorial. The complainant demands an immediate retraction of the advertisement and requests that the respondent does not place advertisements in this regard in the future. In addition, the complainant requests that Virbac advertises this retraction to veterinary practices throughout the Republic of South Africa.

Furthermore, the complainant states that in the advertising material supplied to veterinary practices, the respondent makes the claim that the Virbac microchip cannot migrate. The complainant advises that this is not true and that the product supplied by the complainant is the only product that has a patented anti-migration capacity. There is no proof that the microchip provided by the respondent has anti-migratory capacity. The complainant requests the respondent's confirmation it will not proceed with advertisements claiming anti-migratory capabilities in respect of its micro-chip and that it will publish a retraction of the claim, both in Animal Talk magazine and to veterinary practices throughout the Republic of South Africa.

Relevant clauses of the code of advertising practice
In the light of the complaint the following clauses of the Code were taken into account:

• Clause 4.1 of Section II - Substantiation
• Clause 4.2.1 of Section II - Misleading Claims

Response
The respondent submits the following:

1. BackHome is a brand new product and is being introduced into a market in which Identipet has a 97% market share.
2. The components of BackHome consist of a microchip, a scanner and an online database. The microchip is implanted under the skin of the animal. Every microchip carries a unique number. A scanner is used to pick up the signal from the microchip. The scanner then displays the microchip's unique code number on its screen. The implanted microchip numbers and relevant owner's information are kept on an online database. Veterinarians and welfare organisations can, with the necessary equipment, use BackHome to identify animals and contact their owners.
3. Veterinarians, welfare organisations and pet owners without access to the Internet can telephone the respondent during office hours should they require information on the online database or other information pertaining to the Virbac microchip.
4. The respondent is in the process of distributing scanners, free of charge, to participating veterinarians and welfare organisations all over the country. At the present date, the respondent has distributed its first consignment of two hundred and fifty scanners and is preparing to distribute its next consignment.
5. The respondent submitted a list of veterinary practices and welfare organisations to which its scanners were supplied, and a copy of a published research document in support of the anti-migratory claim made in its advertising material distributed to veterinary practices.

Independent Verification
The respondent submitted a research document published in The Veterinary Record September 18 1999, which states the following:

"Ninety transponders (microchips), 45 made of bioglass, 30 made of acid-etched bioglass and 15 made of bioglass and provided with a polypropylene cap, were inserted into 15 dogs in six different locations… A clinical evaluation revealed that about half of the transponders inserted in all the shoulder locations had migrated to some extent, whereas the transponders in the head location had hardly moved. There were no differences in the extent of the migration between the different types of transponders. Histological analysis showed that almost all the transponders were surrounded by a thin fibrous capsule with no sign of any gross inflammatory reaction."

The respondent also submitted independent verification from IER, an independent and respected supplier of scanners and microchips, confirming that the Virbac Backhome V100 microchip reader is capable of reading all microchips according to the FDX-B part of the ISO 11 784/ 11 785 electronic animal identification standards. This reader is also compliant with microchips of the FDX-A type.

ASA Directorate Ruling
At a meeting held on 26 May 2003 the ASA Directorate considered all the relevant documentation submitted by the respective parties.

The Directorate notes that the respondent submitted independent verification that its scanners are able to read both FDX-A and FDX-B type microchips. No proof, however, was submitted confirming that the complainant's scanners are compatible with the respondent's microchips. It appears therefore that it is unlikely in the event of an animal, implanted with the respondent's microchip, being taken to a veterinary practice or welfare organisation in possession of the complainant's scanner only, that the scanner will be able to read the microchip and therefore be able to re-home the animal. The claim "Veterinary practices and welfare organisations (usually the first place where stray animals are brought to) will have direct access to the database" has therefore not been substantiated by the respondent, creating a misleading impression that any type of scanner would be able to read the Virbac microchip and accordingly re-home the animal. This claim is therefore in contravention of Clause 4.2.1 of Section II. As the claim is not substantiated and independently verified, it is also in contravention of Clause 4.1 of Section II.

The claim "Veterinary practices and welfare organisations (usually the first place where stray animals are brought to) will have direct access to the database" creates the impression that any veterinary practice or welfare organisation to which an animal can be taken to, will be able to scan and read the respondent's microchip. The respondent submitted a list of the veterinary practices and welfare organisations to which its scanners were distributed at the time of publishing the advertorial. As the publication in which the advertorial appeared is a national publication, the Directorate is of the view that the number of scanners distributed by the respondent at the time that the advertorial was published was insufficient when compared with the number of readers and the circulation of the publication, to justify the claim made i.e. the distribution of Virbac scanners at the time of publishing the advertorial was not wide enough to meet the demands of an advertisement placed in a national publication. The claim made is therefore incorrect and misleading, as many veterinary practices and welfare organisations would not have had access to the respondent's scanners at the time of publishing the advertorial in question. The above claim is therefore in contravention of Clause 4.2.1 of Section II.

Accordingly, the respondent is required to withdraw the advertorial with immediate effect, in its current format, within the deadlines stipulated in Clause 15.3 of the Procedural Guide, until such time that the claim "Veterinary practices and welfare organisations (usually the first place where stray animals are brought to) will have direct access to the database" is fully substantiated and independently verified as required in Clause 4.1 of Section II.

The Directorate is of the view that the claim "The Fibrous capsule surrounding the implant prevents it from being rejected or from migrating" cannot be read in isolation as it forms part of the paragraph "The migration of transponders was a problem in the past. Nowadays, with the latest technology, if migration does occur it is usually less than 2cm and does not pose any threat to the animal. It is recommended that the chip should be implanted away from moving joints. After the microchip-capsule has been implanted an inflammatory reaction of the connective tissue is observed and leads to the formation of the capsule composed of fibrocytes and collagen fibres around the microchip-capsule implant. This fibrous capsule surrounding the implant prevents it from being rejected or from migrating." This paragraph read as a whole suggests that the microchip does in fact migrate, if only less than 2cm from where it was implanted, and neither states nor implies that the microchip does not migrate at all. The Directorate is of the view that this paragraph does not make any claims, which do not appear in the published research document submitted by the respondent. The Directorate would like to point out that the research states that the tests on the ninety microchips tested revealed no difference in migration between the different types of microchips compared in the study conducted. The claim "The Fibrous capsule surrounding the implant prevents it from being rejected or from migrating" read in the context of the entire paragraph would therefore appear to be correct and supported by the research submitted, and is as such, not misleading in any way. Given this, the above claim is not in contravention of either Clause 4.1 or 4.2.1 of Section II.

As the advertorial is in contravention of the Code in terms of the first claim, the complaint is partially upheld. The Directorate cannot rule on the request for a retraction. The matter will therefore be referred to the Advertising Industry Tribunal (AIT) for its further consideration.

If you would like to obtain more info on our products, please fill in your details in the spaces provided below and an Identipet specialist will contact you.

Name: Country: E-Mail: Tel: country code, area code, tel no., ext. Description of your needs: