Goop product claims criticised in UK, reported to regulators

By

Sandra Halliday

Published
Oct 30, 2018

Gwyneth Paltrow’s Goop wellness website and her wider empire could be in trouble with regulators again, this time in the UK. A charity dedicated to debunking unscientific product claims has complained to the Advertising Standards Authority and National Trading Standards about some of the claims the company is making.

The Good Thinking Society said it has identified 113 examples of Goop claims that could fall foul of the law.

Goop last month agreed to pay $150,000 in California to settle a lawsuit accusing it of making unsubstantiated claims about product benefits.

The Good Thinking Society said that Goop is giving “potentially dangerous” advice related to the “unproven” benefits of “wellness products” and could encourage consumers to “use products which could cause direct harm.”

Laura Thomason, a project manager at the Good Thinking Society, said that while the website has good intentions, it’s “shocking to see the sheer volume of unproven claims made by Gwyneth Paltrow's Goop, especially given that some of their health advice is potentially dangerous … Just because Gwyneth has an Academy Award, it does not mean that Goop should be given an easy ride compared to other big corporations.”

She added that if the evidence can't be found to back up the claims then the claims shouldn't be made.

Goop has been criticised for a number of years about such claims and last month took fact checkers onto its payroll for the first time.

The company said it hasn't been contacted by either of the bodies to which the Good Thinking Society has complained, but an ASA spokesperson said on Monday that the body is looking into the situation.

Britain’s Code of Non-broadcast Advertising, Sales Promotion and Direct Marketing (its CAP Code), requires that “before submitting marketing communications for publication, marketers must ensure that they hold documentary evidence to prove all claims, whether direct or implied, that are capable of objective substantiation.”

And when it comes to medical and scientific claims made about health and beauty products, it wants to see evidence, where relevant, consisting of trials on human subjects.