- The complainant told the ARB that the product was marketed as swallowable, even though the packaging warned consumers not to ingest it.
- Zestura blamed what it called packaging variations and insisted the formula was unchanged.
- The ARB rejected that explanation and declared the advertising dishonest and misleading.
It all began with a Facebook advert promising sunlight in a capsule. A consumer approached the Advertising Regulatory Board after seeing an advert for tanning capsules sold by Fredriksz e-commerce, trading as Zestura Health and Beauty.
The product, called TanShine, appeared in what the ARB described as an editorial-style advert. In it, a woman lifts a yellow capsule towards her mouth, surrounded by images of bronzed skin and a tanning bed crossed out in red.
The messaging was clear and confident. Customers were told, “Just take one capsule a day – it’s that easy!” The reality, however, turned out quite different from the impression created by the advert.
When the product arrived, the complainant discovered that the packaging specifically warned that the capsules were not to be ingested. They explained to the ARB that the advertising was misleading because it showed a woman holding a capsule near her mouth and included phrases such as “just take one capsule a day,” which strongly suggested the capsules should be swallowed, even though the instructions said otherwise.
There was also confusion about the identity of the product. Although it was sold online as TanShine, the product delivered was branded Hoygi. The complainant said this caused uncertainty about what had really been purchased and whether it was the same as the product advertised.
Performance claims were disputed as well. The advertising promised a full-body tan that would last all year round, but the complainant noted that the capsules were too small for such a purpose and seemed suitable only for facial use.
The advertiser’s defence
Zestura did not dispute the discrepancies in packaging. In its response to the ARB, the company said it had already contacted its supplier about the packaging differences. The supplier responded that packaging and labelling might vary between production batches or regions but claimed the product formulation was identical to the advertised item.
Zestura stated it had informed the complainant and advised that the product should be used according to the instructions on the packaging. However, the response did not address the issue of ingestion and did not provide any documents, testing data, or independent verification to support the advertising claims. The company simply ended with an offer to provide more information if needed.
The ARB’s answer
The Directorate began its ruling by raising concerns about Zestura’s transparency. The ruling noted that the website Zestura Cape Town gives the impression that the advertiser is based in Cape Town, but the prices for items are listed in Australian dollars. Another issue was that the contact details on the website refer to Fredriksz e-commerce, which is based in the Netherlands rather than in South Africa.
The Directorate concluded that it remains unclear where the business is based or how legitimate it is. Despite these uncertainties, the ARB decided that it had jurisdiction because the company appears to be targeting South African consumers.
The Directorate criticised the advertising for promoting a capsule-based tanning product using both imagery and language that strongly suggest oral ingestion. This includes the claim “just take one capsule a day” and the image of a capsule being raised to the mouth.
Actual customers, however, only discover upon delivery that the product packaging says it is not to be ingested. The ruling dismissed the advertiser’s defence entirely. The Directorate said that Zestura’s response failed to address the core issue and that the advert itself creates a misleading and potentially harmful impression.
Brand confusion and fantasy performance claims
On the issue of product identity, the Directorate stated that the product is advertised as TanShine while the complainant received a product branded Hoygi. Zestura’s explanation did not satisfy the ARB. The ruling points out that the advertiser did not provide an adequate explanation for why the product received by the complainant differed from the one shown in the advertisement.
The ARB was equally firm about the exaggerated performance claims. If the capsule is intended only for facial use and is insufficient for full-body application, then the claims about lasting, all-over tanning are materially misleading. The Board also noted that the advertiser did not address this discrepancy.
After reviewing all the evidence, the ARB concluded that Zestura had breached Clause 2 and Clause 4.2.1 of the Advertising Code. The Directorate found that multiple aspects of the advertisement were misleading. The final finding was that the advertising is dishonest and misleading.
What Zestura must now do
Zestura has been ordered to change its advertising practices with immediate effect. The Board instructed the company to update its website and social media platforms so that they reflect the actual brand of product being sold.
Zestura must also ensure that its advertising no longer gives the impression that the product is ingestible or that a single capsule is enough for full-body use. The ruling specifies that changes must be made within the deadlines set out in Clause 15.3 of the Procedural Guide. For website advertising, this means right away.
Get your news on the go. Click here to follow the Conviction WhatsApp channel.
