Who: Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) and Self Made Girl Boss Ltd, Robbins Research International Inc t/a Tony Robbins, Charlie Johnson, Grant Cardone Training Technologies Inc t/a Grant Cardone, Jessica Crane Ltd
Where: United Kingdom
When: 15 October 2025
Law stated as at: 26 November 2025
What happened:
The ASA has published a series of rulings investigating ads claiming that people could achieve typical earnings or a certain lifestyle by signing up to the advertised training courses. The ASA found all the ads investigated to be misleading.
Across multiple decisions, the ASA scrutinised statements about revenue, profit growth and lifestyle:
- An ad for a digital marketing course claimed that the consumer could earn £20,000-30,000 per month and six figures in a year, while only working four hours a day if they took the course.
- An ad for a Business Mastery Course claimed that attendees could “grow their business overnight 30 to 130 percent, 180 percent with two or three changes” and included the business’ owner, Tony Robbins, saying “I’m going to take you through a 7 Step System for running any business, for growing any business, I don’t care what it is” and “Listen I come from nothing. I have no business background. I have 105 companies doing over seven billion dollars in business…”.
- An ad for a business coach in the fitness industry claimed that its Seven Figure Scaling Systems helped a client earn £33,000 in 30 days, and that the featured client was not “special” or “more qualified” than others. It also claimed that the system allowed to “pull $30K/month online and work fewer hours”.
- An ad for an online business event promoted Grant Cardone’s “7-Step Formula for Scaling In Any Economic Condition”, which allegedly allowed him to build a “$5.5 million business in 90 days with no money, no social media and no name”.
- An ad for a salon “coaching system” stated that it helped “800+ salon owners” to scale to “40% profit margins, filling their team’s books, and stepping off the salon floor – without working more or burning out”.
Typical results require solid proof
In each case, the ASA considered that consumers were likely to read the claims as promises that they could achieve the same earnings and lifestyle by taking the courses, regardless of their own experience or circumstances. However, the ASA understood that that was unlikely and the advertisers did not provide any evidence to demonstrate otherwise. The ASA’s position reflects the UK Code of Non-broadcast Advertising and Direct and Promotional Marketing (CAP Code) requirement that marketing communications “must not materially mislead or be likely to do so”.
Disclaimers at the margins are not enough
The ad for a digital marketing course included a disclaimer stating “These income claims are shown to show what’s possible. These results aren’t typical and my work ethic is not typical…it requires consistency, hard work and constant learning”. However, the ASA noted that the text was placed at the bottom of the ad and that consumers were likely to notice it only after reading the full caption.
Testimonials and personal track records are not a substitute for substantiation
The advertiser for the Business Mastery Course said that Mr Robbins’ personal business results were not meant to be typical. The ad also included multiple, individual testimonials, with significant variations in results, which in the advertiser’s view, showed that outcomes depended on individual circumstances and were not typical or guaranteed. The ASA acknowledged this response, but considered that each individual’s success was still linked to taking the course and there was no evidence that those results were typical. It also found that the claim “I’m going to take you through a 7 Step System for running any business, for growing any business, I don’t care what it is” implied that anyone who took the course could achieve the profits described, regardless of their business.
Misleading ‘free’ representation
The ad for a digital marketing course claimed that Self Made Girl Boss would send a free beginner’s guide and “the exact course I took to learn these skills”. In the ASA’s view, consumers would read this to mean that both products were free when it was only true for the beginner’s guide – the course was available at a cost of £390. Because the ad did not make that distinction clear, the ASA found it misleading.
Exaggerating efficacy of free training content
Ads for a salon “coaching system” promoted “free training” that revealed a “3-part system” to helping salon owners create “freedom, profit, and growth on autopilot” and take them from “barely breaking even” to 40%+ profit margins. The ASA found that consumers would understand this to mean that the free video alone would deliver those results. In fact, while the free video introduced some strategies, it promoted further programmes, and invited users to book a follow-up call to “map out the next steps” (with no clarity on any additional cost). Because the ad implied that those profits and lifestyle could be achieved solely by watching the free training, the ASA found it misleading.
‘Top 1%’ claim unsupported
The same advertiser also used claims such as “Here’s how the top 1% of owners broke free – and how you can too […]” and “What the Top 1% of Salon Owners Know That You Don’t (Yet)”. It also invited users to “Grab your spot now and learn what the top 1% of salon owners are doing differently”. The ASA found that consumers would take this to mean that the industry’s most financially successful salons used the advertised system to achieve their results. As no evidence was provided to support that notion, the ASA found these claims misleading.
Why this matters:
Claims about earnings, growth percentages or lifestyle changes must be backed by robust evidence showing that the results achievable from an advertised course are typical for the average consumer. Universal claims that a method works “for any business” or “regardless of conditions” should not be made unless they are supported by robust proof. However, testimonials, founder success stories and case studies are not sufficient as substantiation on their own. Further, disclaimers are unlikely to cure a misleading headline if they are hidden beneath the main text; such clarifications should be clear and prominent. Advertisers should also take care with statements that the results can be achieved through the use of the “free” product alone. If results are only achievable by also purchasing additional products, this must be clearly stated in the ad.
