Australian regulator wins case against tanning industry
Last Updated: Friday, August 29, 2008 | 10:47 AM ET
CBC News
An Australian court has found that statements about the effects of tanning used by the industry to promote its business are false or misleading, and has forbidden their use, the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) said Friday.
The agency said in a news release that the Federal Court of Australia had concluded that a tanning group and two tanning companies had made false claims and misrepresented the risks associated with tanning salons, a violation of the country's Trade Practices Act.
ACCC chairman Graeme Samuel said the court declared certain statements made by the companies and the Australian Tanning Association Inc. (ATA) were "false or misleading and deceptive," including:
- There is no evidence linking salon use with an increased risk of skin cancer; (there is evidence of increased risk).
- A salon provides the same ultraviolet light as sunlight; (it does not).
- Tanning does not involve damage to the skin; (it does).
- Tanning protects the skin against sunburn; (it does not).
- Tanning protects the skin from ultraviolet light and the risks of ultraviolet light exposure; (it does not).
- The body repairs any damage to the skin caused by ultraviolet light exposure; (it does not).
- The skin is not damaged by ultraviolet light exposure unless it receives a sunburn; (the skin is damaged).
- Forms used by the two companies can accurately assess a person's skin type to predict responses to ultraviolet light; (the forms could not be used in this fashion).
"I suspect some members of the public may have believed one or more of the above statements to be true and decided to purchase solarium services on that basis," Samuel said.
The ACCC took the ATA, Body Bronze International Pty. Ltd., Tropical Sun Industries Pty. Ltd. and Scott Meneilly, the former president of the association and former CEO of Body Bronze, to court in July.
As well as making the finding that certain statements were wrong, the court told the companies to stop using them, to implement a trade practices compliance program and to publicize the outcome of the case.
The defendants were also ordered to pay the ACCC's costs.
