Top 10 ASA rulings: Q1 2025

A quick overview 

This quarter we saw some continued trends in the ASA's approach to enforcement, including an increased number of rulings which originated from the ASA's own investigatory approach using AI tools, rather than in response to consumer complaints. This is consistent with the ASA's more proactive approach to ad monitoring and investigation to ensure compliance with the CAP code. 

We also saw some consistent themes in the ASA's approach, with rulings targeting greenwashing, ads promoting unregulated investments and problematic 'online choice architecture'. The number of rulings against advertisers of unregulated investments is somewhat unprecedented and further demonstrates the ASA's willingness to take action in this area.

Of particular note is also the ASA's first ruling relating to an alcohol alternative (Heineken 0.0%) which featured Max Verstappen promoting the drink. It follows alcohol alternatives being brought into scope of the CAP and BCAP rules in 2024. 

Top 10 rulings

ASA ruling on (1) Fine Wine Merchants Ltd; (2) Cult & Boutique (Wine Management) Ltd; (3) Cult Wines Ltd; (4) Vinverum Ltd; (5) The Pure Gold Group Ltd t/a The Pure Gold Company; (6) Solomon Global Ltd t/a Buy Bullion; (7) Harrington & Byrne Ltd; (8) Aurum & Argenti Ltd t/a Bullion Club, bullionclub.co.uk; and (9) Gold Warehouse Ltd t/a Gold Bank

• Date of rulings: 20 November 2024

• Decision: Upheld

• Number of complaints: 1-2

A landslide of rulings was issued against various companies' advertisements for unregulated investments which primarily appear in paid search or digital media. The rulings all form part of the ASA's wider work focussed on ads for unregulated investment and were identified for investigation following intelligence gathered by the ASA. The businesses identified fell into two categories (1) those advertising investments in fine wines; and (2) those advertising investments in gold bullion/sovereign coins.

We won't fill these precious column inches with details of all the various rulings, but the ads typically made claims such as:

• “Discover the stability of wine investment. One of the most stable investments on the market. Inflation and recession resistant for a secure investment journey. Proven growth: Up 600% in the last 20 years…Secure Your Future: Invest in the stability and resilience of fine wine…”.

• “Transform Your Portfolio with Fine Wine Investment”.

• “… Gold Investments 2023 Gold Collectors Guide. Gold has historically held its value over time, making it a good hedge against inflation. Gold …”.

• “GOLD BANK LONDON RISE OF THE PHOENIX COULD THIS BE THE BEST INVESTMENT YOU’VE EVER MADE?”.

• “The Pure Gold Company… Invest in tax-free gold with competitive rates, buy-back guarantee and first-class service”.

Depending on the specific ad, the ASA challenged the ads on various grounds covering whether the ads: (1) were misleading because they failed to illustrate the risks of the investments; (2) did not make clear that past performance was not representative and did not necessarily give a guide for the future; and (3) made specific claims regarding investment performance (eg “fine wine has delivered an annualized return of 13.6% over the last 15 years”) which were misleading and could not be substantiated. 

In upholding all of the complaints, the ASA made it clear that (depending on the nature of the claims made) the ads variously breached CAP Code rules 3.1 and 3.3 (Misleading advertising), 3.9 (Qualification) and 14.4 (Financial products).

As such, the ads must not appear again in their current form. All future advertising for these investments must make clear that wine/gold investments are unregulated, and that the value of investments was variable and could go down as well as up.

ASA ruling on Wizz Air Hungary Ltd

• Date of ruling: 27 November 2024

• Decision: Upheld

• Number of complaints: 1

In a similar fashion to the rulings against the ads for unregulated investments, this ruling against Wizz Air forms part of the ASA's wider work on airline industry advertising and environmental claims, or "greenwashing". The ad was identified by the ASA's 'Active Ad Monitoring' system, using AI to proactively search for ads that might breach the CAP Code. See our previous summary for earlier rulings here.

A paid-for Google ad for airline Wizz Air, seen on 9 June 2024, stated “Fly Wizz Air – one of the greenest choices in air travel”. The ASA challenged whether the claim "one of the greenest choices in air travel" was misleading.

The CAP Code requires that the basis of comparisons with identifiable competitors where claiming a service is "greener" or "friendlier" should be verifiable and include sufficient information for consumers to understand the comparison and verify its accuracy.

The ASA determined that consumers would interpret the claim "one of the greenest choices in air travel" as meaning Wizz Air's environmental impact was among the lowest compared to all airlines operating flights to and from the UK.

Although Wizz Air based their claim on factors such as aircraft type and carbon emissions per passenger measured in CO2/RPK, this information was not included in the ad. Additionally, no supporting information was provided to help consumers understand or verify these claims.

Due to the lack of clarity regarding the basis of the claim and absence of verifying information, it was concluded that Wizz Air's ad breached the CAP Code and must not appear again in its current form.

The ASA instructed Wizz Air to ensure future advertisements clearly specify the basis for any comparative environmental claims, avoid misleading impressions about their flights' environmental impact, and provide sufficient information enabling consumers to verify comparisons with identifiable competitors or direct them to such information.

This ruling underlines the ASA's messaging that any environmental claims must be verifiable and relate to the business's wider environmental impact.

ASA ruling on Heineken UK Ltd t/a Heineken

• Date of ruling: 18 December 2024

• Decision: Upheld in part

• Number of complaints: 1

In the first ruling of its kind, the ASA has issued an upheld ruling for an ad relating to a 0% alcohol beer. The ruling relates to a paid-for online display ad for Heineken 0.0, an alcohol-free beer featuring an image of the Formula One race driver Max Verstappen holding a bottle of Heineken 0.0 beer. Overlayed text stated, “The best driver is the one who is not drinking”, and “Unless it’s”, next to the bottle of Heineken 0.0 beer. Some small print referred to the Drink Aware website bedrinkaware.co.uk, followed by “Enjoy Heineken responsibly”. A logo that stated, “When you Drive, Never Drink” was shown around a steering wheel and a bottle of five per cent Heineken. A Heineken logo was in the corner of the ad.

The ruling assessed: (1) whether the ad failed to include a prominent statement of the product’s ABV (alcohol by volume) percentage and was therefore in breach of the Code; and (2) whether the ad irresponsibly encouraged drink driving.

The complaint was upheld on point (1) on the basis that the CAP Code requires that marketing communications for alcohol alternatives must also prominently state their Alcohol By Volume (ABV). This is to ensure consumers are fully informed, especially those who avoid even trace amounts of alcohol due to potential physical or emotional harm. Terms like "alcohol free" can apply to products up to 0.5% ABV, thus necessitating clear visibility of the ABV in advertisements.

In the Heineken 0.0 beer advertisement featuring Max Verstappen, the only mention of its ABV was on the bottle label. However, given the size of the bottle and its text relative to Max Verstappen's image, this reference was not considered sufficiently prominent.

Therefore, the ASA concluded that the advertisement breached the CAP Code concerning alcohol alternatives due to its failure to provide a prominent statement of ABV.

As a result, the ad must not appear again in its current form.

In not upholding the complaint regarding point (2) the ASA made clear that the CAP Code permits marketing communications for alcohol alternatives to depict the product in situations where consuming alcoholic drinks would be inappropriate or unsafe, such as before driving or during daring physical activities, provided it is clear that the product is an alcohol alternative. These communications must not encourage or condone alcohol consumption in such scenarios or imply that the product is alcoholic. It is acceptable for the alcohol alternative to resemble an alcoholic drink as long as this is made explicitly clear.

In the Heineken 0.0 beer advertisement featuring Max Verstappen, some elements were found to be problematic, such as using a Heineken logo instead of a Heineken 0.0 logo and referencing the Drink Aware website—branding typically associated with alcoholic drinks rather than alcohol alternatives. Additionally, the only reference to ABV was on the bottle label, which was not sufficiently prominent.

However, prominent text in the ad stated “The best driver is the one who is not drinking,” alongside smaller text “Unless it’s…” next to the product, and a top right-hand corner logo stating “When you Drive, Never Drink.” The distinct blue labelling indicated that it promoted a non-alcoholic beer suitable for pre-driving consumption. Despite insufficient prominence of the ABV statement, the ASA concluded that overall context clearly signified Heineken 0.0 as an alcohol alternative.

It seems that the ASA has drawn quite a fine line here between the two issues and the main take-away is that any ad for an alcohol alternative needs to be carefully thought out, with clear labelling of product ABV and avoid referencing alcohol.

ASA ruling on Origin Sleep UK Ltd t/a Origin Mattress

• Date of ruling: 18 December 2024

• Decision:  Upheld

• Number of complaints:  1

This ruling is indicative of the approach the ASA takes towards online choice architecture and manipulating buyer choice. It mirrors much of the issues highlighted in both the Emma Sleep (read more here), and Simba Sleep and Wowcher CMA investigations and undertakings (read more on that here). It appears from the ruling that the complaint was made by Emma Matratzen GmbH ("Emma") (the German entity of 'Emma Sleep'). Presumably Emma and Origin had already proceeded through the inter-party resolution procedure for competitor complaints but there was sufficient grounds for the ASA to consider the complaint further.

The ASA assessed various statements, claims and promotional offers that appeared across the Origin Mattress website including: 

• A banner at the top that included text which stated, “Mega Summer Sale up to 45% off […] ending in […]” followed by a countdown clock showing the days, hours, minutes and seconds left of the sale.

• A product listing which stated, “Up to 40% off”, under which the original price of £465 was shown with a line crossed through, followed by the sale price of £279.00.

• The product webpage for the “Origin Hybrid Mattress” which included text that stated, “Absolute Pressure Relief […] Orthopaedic Back Support […] Designed by orthopedics and engineered for pain-free sleep – it’s time to kick that backpain for good”. Further text seen on the page stated, “the highest possible comfort and spinal alignment in any mattress”.

• A further product webpage for the “Origin Hybrid Pro Mattress” included the subheading “NEW & IMPROVED Revolutionary HexaGrid Plus for Deep Pressure-Relief”, with further text beneath which stated, “Three Times More Support […] Enhanced Pressure Relief […] Our proprietary technology is designed by orthopaedics and engineered for pain-free sleep.”

Emma contested whether: (1) the countdown clock implied that the sales promotion was time limited and so was misleading (the same promotion was available under a new name after the countdown ended); (2) reference prices and associated savings claims made for the “Mega Summer Sale” could be substantiated; and (3) efficacy claims related to the orthopaedic and health properties of Origin’s products could be substantiated.

On point (1) the ASA concluded that the promotion was misleading. The website banner claimed discounts of up to 45% with a countdown clock, suggesting the sale was time-limited and prices would revert to normal after the countdown ended. However, no pricing history was provided, and a new sale offering similar discounts began immediately after the "Mega Summer Sale" ended. This misled consumers into believing they needed to make quick purchasing decisions before the sale expired. The ad breached the CAP Code due to its false implication of a time-limited promotion and pressurising consumers into hasty transactions.

Regarding (2) the ASA ruled that the ads for the Hybrid Pro and Hybrid Mattresses were misleading due to unsubstantiated claims of price reductions and savings percentages. The ad featured struck-through prices with current sale prices and the phrases "Up to 45% off – ENDS SOON," which implied genuine savings against usual selling prices. However, Origin Mattresses were unable to provide historic pricing information, it was therefore determined that the higher reference prices were not verified as usual selling prices. Additionally, screenshots showed consistent sale listings over three months with similar discounts during concurrent promotions. Therefore, the ad's savings claims were considered misleading.

On the final point (3), the ASA concluded that Origin Mattress's advertisement for the Hybrid and Hybrid Pro Mattresses and associated claims about pressure relief, orthopaedic back support, spinal alignment, pain relief, and comparative advantages over competitors were misleading. Consumers would interpret these claims to mean that the mattresses provided medically-proven benefits and significant comparative advantages. However, Origin Mattress failed to provide robust documentary evidence or clinical trials to substantiate these claims. As a result, the advertisement was found in breach of the CAP Code.

The complaints were upheld on all grounds and the ads must not appear again in their current form. Additionally, the ASA went a step further and required Origin Sleep to ensure their ads did not mislead as to promotions, imply that discount offers were time-limited or would not be repeated if that was not the case. All future savings claims must not mislead, and must be supported by substantiation. Ads making claims about the orthopaedic and health properties of their products must be capable of being fully substantiated. The matter was referred to CAP’s compliance team.

This decisions should be read alongside the ASA ruling on Winedrops which also covered price reduction clams and misleading star ratings.

ASA ruling on Vita Studio Pte Ltd

• Date of ruling: 4 December 2024 

• Decision: Upheld 

• Number of complaints: 2 

The ASA investigated Vita Studio Pte Ltd  over an ad for their mobile app tile-matching puzzle game, which depicted a man in medical scrubs and on-screen text stating “I recommended [sic] you to play Vita Mahjong […] It’s a game designed Exclusively for people with memory loss and sleep loss […] Play it for 30 minutes everyday it will greatly help you with memory and sleep”. The two complaints questioned whether the ad discouraged treatment for conditions for which medical supervision should be sought and whether the claims could be substantiated.

Vita Studio removed the ad and apologised for any issues it may have caused, confirming they would be strengthening their internal review processes to help ensure future ads adhered to the CAP Code and industry standards.

The ASA found that the ad discouraged essential treatments for conditions for which medical supervision should be sought, in breach of the CAP code. It considered the ad implied the app could help people suffering from memory loss problems, but Vita Studio was unable provide evidence showing their app was supervised by a qualified medical professional. The ASA also considered that consumers would interpret the claim that playing the mobile app game for thirty minutes daily could help with sleep loss and improve their sleeping, and the appearance of the man in medical scrubs reinforced the impression of medical benefits. In the absence of evidence, such as clinical trials, to validate the claims, the ASA concluded the claim was not substantiated and was therefore misleading.

ASA ruling on Lloyds Bank plc

• Date of ruling: 18 December 2024

• Decision: Upheld in part

• Number of complaints: 1

The ASA investigated ads in one poster and three paid-for LinkedIn posts for Lloyds, all of which focussed on innovative and/or positive environmental or sustainability initiatives undertaken by Lloyds Bank or its partners. The complaints questioned whether the ads were misleading by omitting significant information about Lloyds’ contribution to carbon dioxide and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.

In response, Lloyds provided explanations and supporting documents to demonstrate that the ads either focussed on innovative business partnerships and made no claims around environmental or social credentials, or were factually accurate, clear and intelligible. For the latter, Lloyds detailed specific nature recovery projects it funds, and set out an overview of sectors it is involved in and the support it offers to clients and customers to take steps towards sustainability.

The ASA upheld the complaint in relation to one of the paid-for LinkedIn posts, which stated “What are we doing to help accelerate the transition to a low carbon economy? We’re committed to supporting the energy transition, by continuing to […]”, then provided more information on steps Lloyds was taking to reduce its caron footprint if consumers clicked on a "see more" button.  The ad made claims about Lloyds' financing of clean and renewable energy, contributing to a low carbon economy (including helping customers become more sustainable) and specifically, the ad stated that Lloyds was putting the "weight of [its] finance" into renewable energy. Coupled with the rural imagery of nature and the Earth in the ad, this gave the overall impression that renewable energy constituted a significant proportion of Lloyds' investments and financed companies.

While Lloyds included some balancing information about reducing their reliance on fossil fuels, this related to their operational use rather than the companies they financed. The ASA noted that whilst Lloyds was taking steps towards net zero and promoting sustainability, its 2023 Sustainability Report revealed that financed emissions for 2022 were 32.8 million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent, indicating substantial contributions to GHG emissions. Investment in climate risk areas remained significant within their activities. The ad omitted material information about ongoing financing of carbon-intensive industries which likely misled consumers around Lloyds' overall environmental impact and sustainability efforts, breaching the CAP code.

ASA ruling on Floor Design Ltd t/a Flooring by Nature

• Date of ruling: 19 February 2025 

• Decision: Upheld 

• Number of complaints: 1

The ASA investigated two issues with the website for Flooring by Nature, which claimed its wool carpets were “eco-friendly” and a “sustainable alternative to synthetic carpets”, and that “Wool carpets also biodegrade at the end of their lives”. The claimant challenged whether the claims were misleading and could be substantiated, since they understood some of the wool carpets used a plastic backing.

Flooring by Nature reviewed and amended their website to clarify claims and direct users to their Info Hub and FAQ pages, and explained that it is standard industry practice to refer to carpets by their pile content, regardless of the type of backing. It also clarified that it aims to offer eco-friendly alternatives with carpet piles comprising 100% wool or natural fibre.

The complaints were upheld on the basis that the claims “sustainable alternative to synthetic carpets” and “eco-friendly” were likely to mislead consumers, as well as the suggestion that all of the carpets and their components were biodegradable. The CAP Code requires absolute claims to be supported by substantial evidence, while comparative claims like "greener" can be justified if they show an overall environmental benefit compared to previous or competitor products, with a clear basis for comparison. The ASA did not see evidence which adequately substantiated the claims or the comparisons, so held the claims were likely to mislead.

The ASA also considered that consumers would understand the claim “eco-friendly” as meaning the carpets were not harmful to the environment at any point during their full life cycle. Marketers must base claims on the full life cycle of the advertised product, unless stated otherwise, and must make clear the limits of the life cycle.

The ASA considered that consumers might interpret the statement that “Wool carpets also biodegrade at the end of their lives” as meaning both the wool pile and the backing of all shown carpets would biodegrade. Flooring by Nature intended this claim to apply only to the woollen pile, not the backing, and the ad did not clarify how to properly of the carpets for successful biodegradation. The ASA also concluded that this was likely to mislead consumers.  The decision demonstrated the ASA's touch stance on environmental claims which cannot be substantiated.

ASA ruling on Beer52 Ltd

• Date of ruling: 18 December 2024 

• Decision: Upheld 

• Number of complaints: 1 

The ad complained of consisted of two emails sent to a subscriber from Wine52 which contained offers for a free case of wine after inviting and referring friends. The complainant attempted to take up both offers but had not qualified for a free case of wine, so challenged whether the promotions had been administered fairly.

Beer52 reviewed and updated their referral scheme communications following the complaint, but believed the terms were widely understood by the members and stated they were available on the website.

The ASA upheld the complaint, since the absence of any other relevant information in each ad would result in a recipient expecting to receive a free case of wine. In both instances, recipients were eligible to receive a free case of wine once the referee renewed their subscription at full price or continued as a subscriber and paid for a second case, but this information was only available in the terms and conditions on Beer52's website.

Ads must include all significant conditions related to the offer, including how to participate and any restrictions, where the omission of such conditions was likely to mislead, unless they were significantly limited by time and space. The emails were considered by the ASA to not be significantly limited by time and space to justify the omission of significant conditions. The requirements that the referred user needed to pay for a full price subscription and subscribe for a designated period of time before  qualifying for a free case of wine was a significant condition of the offer, the omission which from the ad itself was likely to mislead consumers.

ASA ruling on (1) Jaded London Ltd (2) Guangzhou Shimo Culture Media Co Ltd and (3) Metamind AI Ltd t/a AI Persona

• Date of ruling: 11 December 2024 

• Decision: Upheld 

• Number of complaints: 4 (total)

The ASA published a trio of rulings against Jaded London Ltd, Guangzhou Shimo Culture Media Co Ltd and Metamind AI Ltd t/a AI Persona concerning the sexualisation and objectification of women. The ads contained photos of models and digital images of female characters, alongside suggestive text in the case of Metamind AI. 

Complaints also concerned whether the ads were irresponsible, harmful and offensive, had been irresponsibly targeted, and portrayed someone who seemed to be under 18 in a sexual way.

All three complaints were upheld. Although the Jaded London ad depicted a shoe brand, the ASA found that it objectified the women depicted and gave the impression that their bodies were sexual objects. The ASA found that the Metamind ad used tropes from pornography to portray the female characters as sexual objects, objectifying and stereotyping them. One of the female characters was described as a “student”, which effectively portrayed someone under 18 years of age in a sexual way. The ASA stated that ad from Guangzhou Shimo Culture Media Co Ltd, who did not respond to the ASA’s enquiries, depicted the female character in an overtly sexual manner for no other reason than to promote an online game. The ad was also rated 17+ but it was seen within games rated 4+ on the Apple App Store, when it should have been restricted to users aged 18 or older using age verification measures and interest-based targeting to exclude children.

The ASA ruled that all ads included harmful gender stereotypes which was likely to cause serious offence, with one advertiser having failed to provide evidence that they had appropriately minimised the risk of under-18s being exposed to the ad.

All companies were told to ensure their ads were socially responsible, do not cause serious or widespread offence, with Guangzhou Shimo Culture Media Co Ltd's ad being referred to the ASA's compliance team.