Who: The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) and UAB CommerceCore t/a WiggyDog
Where: United Kingdom
When: 25 March 2026
Law stated as at: 1 April 2026
What happened
A paid-for online advertisement by WiggyDog in January promoted a robot-dog toy called Wuffy. The ad featured what appeared to be puppies engaged in a range of lifelike behaviours, including wagging their tails, climbing on a person’s legs, tilting their heads and emerging from a toy box. An accompanying voice-over made a series of claims about the product’s realism and functionality, stating that the robot puppy had “completely fooled” a veterinarian neighbour; it recognises and responds to voices, “sits on command, barks when you talk to him, walks around the house, even tilts his head and wags his tail exactly like a real puppy”, and that it is “like having a real puppy but made from completely safe materials.” The voice-over also claimed that three neighbours had asked where the family had “adopted” the puppy, such was its alleged realism.
Complainants argued that both the appearance and the functionality of the product had been exaggerated by WiggyDog.
WiggyDog confirmed that, following an internal review, it had discontinued the ad and that it was reviewing its internal compliance procedures to ensure that future marketing would comply with the UK Code of Non-broadcast Advertising and Direct and Promotional Marketing.
The ASA upheld the complaints. It found that consumers watching the ad would have understood the product to be highly realistic and lifelike. This impression was reinforced both by the explicit verbal claims in the voice-over and by the video footage, which featured what appeared to be real or AI-generated puppies rather than the actual toy. Since WiggyDog failed to provide adequate evidence demonstrating that the toy was highly realistic and looked and behaved like a real dog, the ASA found that the ad exaggerated the performance and characteristics of the product and was misleading.
Why this matters
This ruling is a reminder that advertisers, particularly those selling novelty or technology-driven consumer products, are expected to be able to substantiate any performance or realism claims with robust evidence. Caution should be exercised when using AI-generated or other imagery to represent a product rather than the actual product itself, as doing so may significantly overstate its appearance and functionality in ways that mislead consumers. The decision is a reminder that all claims, whether verbal or visual, should accurately reflect what a product can genuinely do, as a failure to do so risks ASA enforcement action.
