Who: The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) and Diesel SpA (Diesel)
Where: United Kingdom
When: 11 June 2025
Law stated as at: 7 July 2025
What happened:
On 26 March 2025, a Diesel ad on a newspaper website included an image of a model, Katie Price, wearing a bikini and holding a handbag, promoting Diesel’s summer 2025 collection. The complainants contended that: (i) the ad objectified and sexualised women and was therefore offensive, harmful and irresponsible; and (ii) the model appeared unhealthily thin.
Diesel responded by removing the ad from the website. Responding to the first complaint, Diesel said that the purpose of the campaign was to challenge body stereotypes and promote diversity and a range of body types. Diesel noted that the ad may be distasteful to some, as any ad challenging societal norms would be, but that the ad did not objectify women. Diesel stated that, in the image, Ms Price was in control and in a pose that showed off her body and the handbag, and that her exaggerated appearance with large lips and breasts formed part of the campaign’s creativity.
In response to the second complaint, Diesel defended the suggestion that Ms Price appeared unhealthily thin, noting that Ms Price’s head was in proportion with her body, no bones were overly pronounced and her arms showed healthy muscle.
The first complaint was upheld by the ASA, which considered that elements of the ad, such as the positioning of the handbag and the background of the image, sexualised Ms Price in a way that objectified her. The ASA suggested that the positioning of the handbag appeared to draw attention to her breasts, and the background of the image appeared to be a house, which would not usually be a setting associated with wearing a bikini. On this basis, the ASA held that the ad breached the CAP code rules 1.3 (social responsibility) and 4.1 (harm and offence).
In respect of the second complaint, however, the ASA agreed with Diesel that, although Ms Price was slender, she did not appear unhealthily thin in the ad. On this basis, the ad was not irresponsible and did not breach the CAP Code.
Why this matters:
This decision highlights the importance of considering the overall effect of an ad, including whether certain elements may make an ad socially irresponsible. For example, displaying a model in a bikini in a context not associated with swimwear, and positioning products to draw attention to certain areas of the body to sexualise the model, are more likely to cause harm and offence.
