Back to the archive

The encyclopedia · Advertising & PR · Marketing decision · 2024

Tea Life's Metabome Tea ads promised weight loss with no diet or exercise

Japan fined Tea Life ¥17.7 million for Metabome Tea ads implying drinkers would slim dramatically without dieting or exercise.

Tea Life (ティーライフ) · 2024-03-06

What happened

Tea Life sold 'メタボメ茶', a pouch-tea product of 30 tea bags, via catalogs and booklets distributed with mail-order goods by the retailer Belluna. The ads promoted it as a '中年太り解決読本' (middle-aged weight-gain solution) that would return the reader to 'the slim me of those days'.

The copy ran dramatic before-and-after testimonials — '96kg → 53kg, minus 43kg in two and a half years', 'minus 3.7kg in about three months' — and claimed the tea's ingredients delivered the effect. A key line asked how the reader could drop weight 'without strict dieting or hard exercise', implying the tea alone caused the loss.

The CAA and the Fair Trade Commission's Chubu Office found the ads conveyed that consuming the product would produce significant slimming effects from the tea's own action, without diet or exercise. On 6 March 2024 they issued a surcharge payment order of ¥17,710,000 under Article 8(1) of the Act, covering misleading catalogs distributed from April 2018 to June 2019. Disclaimers that the stories were fiction or that results varied were held not to cure the overall impression.

Why it happened

  • Promising dramatic weight loss caused by the drink itself, with no diet or exercise
  • Running before-and-after testimonials that implied a guaranteed physique change
  • Adding small disclaimers and assuming they neutralised the big claim
  • Repeating the fiction in catalogs for more than a year
What it cost¥17.7M surcharge; weight-loss tea claims finedembarrassing

The lesson

Fiction disclaimers do not neutralise a dramatic health claim. If the page says the product alone makes people shrink, a footnote that the story is invented does not make the ad true.

Aftermath

Tea Life had to pay the ¥17.71 million surcharge by October 2024 after its evidence failed to establish reasonable grounds for the claims. The case is a clean example of Japan fining a foodmaker for implied effect claims where the 'results' were storytelling, not the product's action.

Sources

spotted an error? The club wants to know.

Comments · 0

    Sign in to join the comments.

    More like this

    Somewhere, someone solved the problem this company failed at. 2nd Opinion →