- Date of ruling: 20 August 2025
The ASA investigated a TV advertisement for Sanex shower gel. The advertisement featured scenes of a black woman covered in red scratch marks and cracked clay-like material, with a voiceover that said, "To those who might scratch day and night. To those whose skin will feel dried out even by water." This was followed by a white woman successfully using the product, alongside the claim "RELIEF COULD BE AS SIMPLE AS A SHOWER."
Two complainants challenged whether the advertisement perpetuated negative stereotypes about people with darker skin tones and was offensive. Colgate-Palmolive (UK) Ltd defended the advertisement, stating they believed it featured models with varied backgrounds in a 'before and after' scenario to demonstrate product effectiveness for all skin types. Rather than making racial or ethnic comparisons, it was intended to demonstrate the product's inclusivity for all skin types and the skin tone was not a focal point.
The ASA upheld the complaint, finding that the advertisement created a problematic juxtaposition where black skin was depicted as itchy, dry and cracked in 'before' scenes, while white skin was shown as smoother in 'after' scenes. The ASA acknowledged that this was not the intention but concluded that the structure could be interpreted as suggesting white skin was superior to black skin, thereby reinforcing negative and offensive racial stereotypes.
The ASA found that the advert breached BCAP Code rule 4.2 (Harm and offence), and the ASA ordered that it must not appear again in the form complained of, with specific direction to avoid causing serious offence on grounds of race.
Key takeaway: this ruling demonstrates the ASA's commitment to preventing racial stereotyping in advertising. Advertisers must carefully consider how visual narratives and product demonstrations might be interpreted, particularly when featuring models of different ethnicities. The 'before and after' format requires particular sensitivity to avoid suggesting racial superiority.
- Date of ruling: 27 August 2025
The ASA investigated a pricing webpage for Team RH Fitness that advertised "Pay monthly £7.99" and "Pay once £79.99 (Annual)" with "Buy now" under each. Challenges were made as to whether the ad made it clear that the £7.99 monthly subscription was for a minimum term of 12 months.
Team RH Fitness argued that the terms were clearly presented through their checkout process for both the monthly and annual subscription options, and were not misleading, as customers were required to accept Terms and Conditions before purchase, and were not able to proceed to checkout without doing so.
The ASA found that consumers would understand the option "Pay monthly £7.99" as a rolling monthly subscription that could be cancelled at any time, rather than having a minimum term of 12 months (totalling £95.88), plus a waiver of the 14-day cooling-off period. This was significant information required for informed decision-making.
The ASA concluded that the advertisement was misleading because the pricing page made no reference to the minimum commitment, with this crucial information only appearing later in small subtext on the checkout page.
The ad therefore breached CAP Code rules 3.1 and 3.3 (Misleading advertising), 3.9 (Qualification), and 3.17 (Prices). The ASA ordered that the advertisement must not appear again in its current form and directed Team RH Fitness to clearly disclose minimum subscription periods upfront.
Key takeaway: subscription services must prominently display all significant terms, particularly minimum commitment periods, on pricing pages rather than relegating them to checkout processes or terms and conditions. The requirement to waive cooling-off periods is also significant information that consumers need upfront. Advertisers should refer to the CMA's draft guidance.
- Date of ruling: 23 July 2025
- Decision: Upheld (both issues)
The ASA investigated two separate holiday listings featuring crossed-out reference prices: a New York hotel and return flights package showing "£1,090pp (crossed out) £749pp" and a Tenerife hotel and return flights package showing "£1,119pp (crossed out) £699pp".
The two complainants both found that, when they attempted to book the advertised holidays, the prices increased and challenged whether the respective price claims were misleading. We Love Holidays explained that they operated dynamic pricing systems dependent on third-party suppliers, with flight data updated continuously and accommodation data updated three times a day. They did acknowledge that system delays may have caused the pricing discrepancies shown in both of the advertised packages.
The ASA found that consumers would reasonably expect the advertised prices to be available when viewing the advertisements, particularly given the crossed-out reference prices suggesting static offers with savings. However, both holidays continued to be advertised at the lower prices even after the actual prices had increased.
While acknowledging the challenges of dynamic pricing in travel marketing, the ASA noted that CAP guidance on "Travel marketing: Working with third parties" requires marketers to take reasonable steps to reduce consumer confusion, such as indicating when prices were last updated and that they are subject to change.
The ASA concluded both advertisements were misleading because the holidays could not be booked at the advertised discounted prices, and those lower prices continued to be advertised after the price had increased, breaching CAP Code rules 3.1 (Misleading advertising), 3.7 (Substantiation) and 3.17 (Prices).
The ASA directed We Love Holidays to ensure advertised prices are genuinely available and to implement measures such as "from" pricing and last-updated timestamps to reduce consumer confusion.
Key takeaway: dynamic pricing systems require clear consumer communication about price volatility. Travel advertisers should implement "from" pricing, regular price updates, and clear disclaimers about price changes to avoid misleading consumers, particularly when using crossed-out reference prices that suggest static offers.
- Date of ruling: 27 August 2025
- Decision: Upheld (both issues)
This ruling formed part of the ASA's wider work on advertising for greener heating and insulation products, identified through their Active Ad Monitoring system using AI to proactively survey specific sectors. The investigation concerned a Bing search advertisement for Contact a Solar Ltd, a solar panel installer, stating "£5,995 Fully Installed Solar - No Deposit Needed".
The ASA challenged whether the £5,995 claim was misleading and could be substantiated, and whether the advertisement failed to include significant limitations and qualifications. Contact Solar defended the pricing, explaining that all 4.3 kW installations in 2025 had cost £5,995 or less, with exceptions only for battery additions, accessories, or non-standard supply arrangements which support higher loads or more balanced distributions of electricity to a property, for example.
The ASA applied the CAP Code requirements that marketing communications must not mislead by omitting material information, containing undue emphasis or distortion, and that price claims must be accurate and realistic. Consumers would understand the absolute pricing claim to mean Contact Solar charged no more than £5,995 for solar panel installation. Although Contact Solar had sold 4.3 kW solar panel packages at or below £5,995, that price had been exceeded when a consumer’s property had complicating factors, such as a three-phase rather than a single-phase electric supply, or if the consumer had purchased a higher wattage package. There was sufficient space to make clear the package details the price claim referred to and that the price could be affected by a consumer’s individual circumstances.
The ASA concluded that material information had been omitted, and the claim was unsubstantiated, breaching CAP Code rules 3.1, 3.3 (Misleading advertising), 3.7 (Substantiation), 3.9 (Qualification) and 3.17 (Prices).
The ASA directed Contact Solar to include all material information about package limitations and price dependencies in their advertisements, ensuring price statements can be appropriately substantiated.
Key takeaway: solar panel and green technology advertisers must include comprehensive qualifications about pricing, particularly regarding system specifications, installation complexities, and property-specific factors that could affect costs. Absolute price claims require full substantiation across all potential scenarios.
- Date of ruling: 27 August 2025
The ASA investigated an advertisement for Domino's Cadbury Creme Egg cookies that appeared during Minecraft-related content on the "Milo and Chip" YouTube channel, featuring imagery of the cookie being broken apart to reveal egg filling.
The complainant challenged whether the advertisement for a "high in fat, salt or sugar" (HFSS) product was inappropriately directed at children by virtue of it being shown through Minecraft content. Domino's confirmed that the product was HFSS but argued that they had implemented appropriate targeting restrictions, including age-gating to over-18s and not showing the advert on YouTube's "Made for Kids" (MFK) channel. While the Milo and Chip channel did feature content appealing to children, it was not aimed at them and was not labelled MFK. They also noted that the majority of Minecraft's audience are aged 35-44.
The ASA acknowledged that, while Minecraft wasn't exclusively for children, it remained one of the most popular games with under-16s according to Ofcom's 2025 report, with new younger players continually engaging with the game's social media community. The Milo and Chip channel was also assessed, and was found to feature cartoon-style illustrations, animated block-style characters, childlike voices, and content including phrases like "don't tell me you need to go potty" that would appeal to children familiar with Minecraft.
The ASA acknowledged the age-based targeting measures and that the ad was excluded from YouTube's MFK content but concluded that this was insufficient to prevent the advertisement appearing with content likely to appeal to children.
The ad therefore breached CAP Code rule 15.18 (Food, food supplements and associated health and nutrition claims), and the ASA directed Domino's to ensure HFSS advertisements are appropriately targeted and don't appear in media likely to appeal to children.
Key takeaway: HFSS advertisers cannot rely solely on platform age-gating when advertising content that appeals to children. The nature and style of the specific content, including visual elements, language, and themes, must be considered when assessing whether media is likely to appeal to under-16s.
- Date of ruling: 9 July 2025
- Decision: Not upheld (both issues)
The ASA investigated paid-for LinkedIn, Google and Instagram advertisements featuring Formula One (F1) cars with Aramco sponsorship, superimposed text regarding Aramco's "work in ultra-efficient hybrid internal combustion engines and advanced fuels" and voice-over questions about lowering emissions and global net zero targets.
The New Weather Institute challenged whether the advertisements were misleading by omitting significant information about Aramco's overall environmental impact and whether "advanced fuels" claims lacked clear substantiation. In response, Aramco claimed that the ads focused on their new Aston Martin F1 team partnership and were not advertising Aramco's business or its environmental impact.
The ASA found that the advertisements were focused on Aramco's research and the impact it could make, as well as the F1 partnership, rather than making broader environmental claims about Aramco's business.
While the Instagram advertisement included environmental questions about emissions and net zero targets, the ASA considered these were incidental within the overall F1 performance context, representing forward-looking questions about ambition rather than claims about current business activities.
Neither challenge was upheld, with the ASA finding no breach of CAP Code rules 3.1, 3.3 (Misleading advertising), 11.1 and 11.2 (Environmental claims).
Key takeaway: environmental claims in corporate sponsorship advertising can be assessed within their specific context. When advertisements focus on partnership activities and research rather than broader corporate environmental performance, the ASA might find that environmental references are incidental rather than substantive claims (the latter requiring full disclosure of company-wide impacts).
- Date of ruling: 6 August 2025
- Decision: Upheld (all three issues)
The ASA investigated an advertisement featuring comparative scenarios between We Buy Any Car and competitors. The ad first showed a character named Robbie selling his car to an unhappy prospective buyer with a grey background. This was followed by a scene with Robbie selling to a happy prospective buyer with a green background featuring We Buy Any Car branding. It then made claims about "guaranteed sale" with We Buy Any Car. There was a disclaimer regarding the history and condition of the car and administration fees at the bottom of the screen in small writing. It finished by showing the text "To get a quote in 30 seconds, enter your reg number now at webuyanycar.com."
CarWow and Motorway challenged whether:
- the advertisements misleadingly implied faster service than competitors
- that competitor sales weren't guaranteed
- whether comparative claims were verifiable.
In respect of the first two points, We Buy Any Car argued that they weren't making comparisons with identifiable competitors, claiming CarWow and Motorway were intermediaries rather than direct competitors. They also argued that the used car sales market is large and diverse and provided data to show that the time taken to obtain a quote was quicker than doing the same through CarWow. As to the third point, they argued that, since the claims were not comparisons with identifiable competitors, CAP and BCAP Code rules 3.35 would not apply, so it was not necessary to make verifiable information available to customers.
The ASA upheld all complaints, finding that the statement "Robbie could get an offer from another car buying site” would be understood by viewers as drawing a direct comparison with identifiable competitors, and that consumers would view any car buying website as competitive regardless of business model differences and this was emphasised by the colour visuals.
Regarding guarantee claims, We Buy Any Car provided data showing they purchased vehicles following 99.84% of physical inspections, but the ASA found this inadequate as they didn't provide data showing that competitors had lower purchase rates.
For speed claims, We Buy Any Car cited Motorway's 9-17 day timeframe but provided no information about CarWow or other competitors, leading the ASA to conclude that the evidence was inadequate to substantiate comparative claims that We Buy Any Car provided a quicker service than other similar companies.
All three issues breached various CAP and BCAP Code rules on misleading advertising, substantiation, and comparisons with identifiable competitors.
The ASA ordered that the advertisements must not appear again in the form complained of and directed We Buy Any Car not to make comparisons with identifiable competitors without adequate comparative evidence and verifiable claims.
Key takeaway: comparative advertising requires comprehensive evidence about both the advertiser and all relevant competitors. It is not necessary for a competitor to be named in an advert for it to be deemed to have been identified. Business model differences don't prevent competitor identification, and claims about guarantees and speed must be substantiated.
This quarter's rulings demonstrate the ASA's continued evolution in addressing modern advertising challenges, from racial sensitivity and subscription transparency to the complexities of digital targeting and dynamic pricing. Advertisers should note the increasing sophistication of ASA enforcement, particularly through AI-powered monitoring systems, and its willingness to address systemic issues across entire sectors.
