Waltham Forest Echo

Waltham Forest Echo

Chingford salon wrongly accused of promoting 'dangerous' product

A local business came under fire in the national press in a case of mistaken identity

Hero for Chingford salon wrongly accused of promoting 'dangerous' product
Glow Getter Chingford in Station Road (credit: @glowgetter_chingford)
By Victoria Munro 02 March 2022

A Chingford salon was mistakenly accused of promoting a potentially “life-threatening” product after it was confused with a business of a similar name.A Chingford salon was mistakenly accused of promoting a potentially “life-threatening” product after it was confused with a business of a similar name.

Glow Getter Chingford in Station Road was reported to be promoting tanning nasal sprays, which are not licensed for use in the UK, by the MailOnline on 22nd February.Glow Getter Chingford in Station Road was reported to be promoting tanning nasal sprays, which are not licensed for use in the UK, by the MailOnline on 22nd February.

The original article said the salon “racked up over 25,000 likes” on TikTok promoting the product, which a doctor warned could have “significant side effects” including “life-threatening allergic reactions”.The original article said the salon “racked up over 25,000 likes” on TikTok promoting the product, which a doctor warned could have “significant side effects” including “life-threatening allergic reactions”.

However, Glow Getter director Andrew Lysandrou said the TikTok account belongs to an entirely different company, adding that the MailOnline removed the reference to his business after he complained.However, Glow Getter director Andrew Lysandrou said the TikTok account belongs to an entirely different company, adding that the MailOnline removed the reference to his business after he complained.

In an email seen by the Echo, he wrote: “Merely checking Companies House would have shown you that my business and ‘Glow Getter LTD’ are two separate entities, not at all affiliated with one another.In an email seen by the Echo, he wrote: “Merely checking Companies House would have shown you that my business and ‘Glow Getter LTD’ are two separate entities, not at all affiliated with one another.

“These sprays are not at all endorsed within my business, nor is their use encouraged on our social media platforms. “These sprays are not at all endorsed within my business, nor is their use encouraged on our social media platforms. 

“Customers have been contacting me daily… commenting on the article and expressing their concern.”“Customers have been contacting me daily… commenting on the article and expressing their concern.”

The response from the MailOnline, received the next day, reads: “We have looked into the matter with our editors, who have amended the article as per your advice.”The response from the MailOnline, received the next day, reads: “We have looked into the matter with our editors, who have amended the article as per your advice.”

The current version online, updated on 28th February six days after it was first posted, refers only to a “London-based tanning salon”, although Andrew’s request for a specific correction appears to have been ignored.The current version online, updated on 28th February six days after it was first posted, refers only to a “London-based tanning salon”, although Andrew’s request for a specific correction appears to have been ignored.

The MailOnline also failed to respond to his request for “damages for the loss of income”. The MailOnline also failed to respond to his request for “damages for the loss of income”. 

Andrew told the Echo he was not contacted by the MailOnline prior to the publication of the original article. Andrew told the Echo he was not contacted by the MailOnline prior to the publication of the original article. 

The MailOnline was contacted for comment by the Echo on 1st March and had yet to respond at the time of writing.The MailOnline was contacted for comment by the Echo on 1st March and had yet to respond at the time of writing.