When Indigo Sun, a prominent Scottish tanning salon chain, launched an online advertisement in April 2025 touting the supposed health benefits of sunbed use, it likely expected to spark interest—perhaps even debate. What it got instead was a stern rebuke from the United Kingdom’s advertising watchdog, a flurry of public health warnings, and a broader conversation about the responsibilities of commercial health claims in the modern era.
The ad in question, titled "The Health Benefits of Tanning," appeared on Indigo Sun’s website on April 4, 2025. In it, a confident voiceover declared, "New research proves that moderate, responsible use of sunbeds brings major health benefits." The company pointed to a University of Edinburgh study, claiming it showed that "higher UV exposure, whether from sunlight or tanning beds, is linked to reduced deaths from cancer and heart disease." The ad even asserted, "The research also showed that sunbed use was not associated with melanoma mortality." With over 100 salons across the UK, Indigo Sun’s message had the potential to reach thousands.
But the claims didn’t sit well with everyone. According to BBC Scotland News, an NHS doctor quickly raised the alarm, lodging a formal complaint with the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA). The complaint alleged that Indigo Sun’s interpretation of the University of Edinburgh study was taken out of context—a charge that would soon be echoed by the ASA’s own investigation.
The ASA’s inquiry focused on the heart of Indigo Sun’s assertions. The watchdog found that the referenced study, while indeed peer-reviewed and based on data from over 360,000 participants in the UK Biobank, was primarily concerned with the relationship between general UV exposure and mortality in older adults. It was not designed to specifically assess the risks and benefits of sunbed use, nor did it provide a representative sample of the UK’s broader population. The ASA concluded, "That differed significantly from the claims in the ad, which were focused specifically on the health benefits of sunbed use only."
In its ruling, the ASA was unequivocal: "For those reasons, we concluded that the ad made misleading and unsubstantiated claims about the health benefits of sunbed use." The authority also took issue with the ad’s omission of official public health advice regarding the risks of sunbeds. "Because the ad omitted information on official advice from public health bodies about the risks of sunbeds, whilst creating an overall impression that the health benefits of using sunbeds significantly outweighed the risks, we concluded that it was irresponsible," the ASA stated, as reported by The Scottish Sun.
The decision forced Indigo Sun to withdraw the advert, a move the company agreed to make by September 17, 2025. Yet the salon chain’s leadership was far from pleased. Frank Taylor, Indigo Sun’s chief executive, issued a statement expressing disappointment with the ASA’s findings. "We remain disappointed that a peer-reviewed study conducted by the University of Edinburgh, one of the UK's most respected academic institutions, and based on UK Biobank data from over 360,000 participants, was not considered sufficient evidence to support the claims made," Taylor said. He continued, "Our intention was always to share the science, not to make exaggerated or irresponsible assertions. We acknowledge that not everyone agrees with the interpretation of those findings, but we believe they merit inclusion in the broader conversation about UV, vitamin D and public health—a conversation that has been overly reliant on old, outdated studies."
While Indigo Sun stood by its interpretation of the science, public health authorities and medical experts were quick to emphasize the risks associated with sunbed use. According to NHS Inform, exposure to ultraviolet (UV) rays—whether from the sun or tanning beds—is the leading cause of skin cancer in the UK. This includes melanoma, the most dangerous form of skin cancer. Strikingly, using a sunbed just once before the age of 35 can significantly increase the risk of developing melanoma. Other risks highlighted by NHS Inform include eye damage (especially if UV-blocking eyewear is not used), premature skin aging (such as early wrinkles and sun spots), sunburn, and even a weakened immune system, which can leave the body more vulnerable to infections.
Given these dangers, the UK has banned under-18s from using sunbeds—a clear signal of the seriousness with which regulators view the issue. The NHS and other health bodies routinely advise the public to avoid sunbeds altogether, especially for those with fair or sensitive skin, a history of skin cancer, or those seeking to quickly develop a tan before a holiday. Instead, they recommend safer alternatives for vitamin D, such as a healthy diet or supplements, and urge everyone to monitor their skin for any changes.
But what about those who still choose to use sunbeds? NHS Inform provides a list of do’s and don’ts aimed at minimizing harm. Among the recommendations: know your skin type, limit time spent on sunbeds, always wear UV-blocking eyewear, and moisturize after each session. On the flip side, users are warned not to use sunbeds as a method to boost vitamin D or to build up a tan rapidly, and to avoid repeated sessions, especially before vacations.
The Indigo Sun episode has reignited debate about how health-related claims are communicated to the public, particularly when commercial interests are involved. The ASA’s intervention highlights the importance of rigorous, contextually accurate scientific communication—especially when the health of the public may be at stake. While Indigo Sun argued for a more nuanced discussion about UV exposure, vitamin D, and public health, the prevailing consensus among health authorities remains clear: the risks of sunbed use far outweigh any potential benefits.
For many, this case serves as a cautionary tale about the power—and peril—of advertising in shaping public perceptions of health. As new research emerges and the conversation around sun exposure evolves, one thing is certain: claims about health benefits must be backed by robust, contextually relevant evidence, and must never overshadow the well-established risks. The ASA’s ruling stands as a reminder that, when it comes to public health, responsibility and accuracy are non-negotiable.
