Who: The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) and MN2S Management Ltd t/a MN2S
Where: United Kingdom
When: 17 June 2026
Law stated as at: 6 July 2026
What happened
A website for the talent agency MN2S, seen on 24 March, featured a “Talent Roster” webpage with a biography of the photographer Seph Lawless alongside his image, a button “BOOK SEPH LAWLESS” and contact details for an agent. A booking enquiry form appeared after clicking the link. The webpage also included a section on frequently asked questions (FAQs) about booking Seph Lawless, with further information such as: “Does Seph Lawless do voiceovers or on-camera work? Yes – subject to concept approval and scheduling.“
Mr Lawless challenged whether the ad was misleading, on the basis that he was not represented by MN2S and had no professional relationship with them. MN2S did not respond to the ASA’s enquiries and the complaint was upheld.
The ASA considered that consumers would understand from the ad that Mr Lawless was represented by MN2S and was available to be booked through the agency for work. The FAQs further reinforced the impression that he had a professional relationship with MN2S. However, the ASA understood that Mr Lawless was not represented by MN2S and had no professional or contractual relationship with them. MN2S provided no evidence to demonstrate otherwise.
Accordingly, the ASA found that the ad’s presentation of Mr Lawless as part of MN2S’s bookable talent, when that was not the case, was materially misleading and in breach of the UK Code of Non-broadcast Advertising and Direct and Promotional Marketing (CAP Code). The ASA also expressed concern about MN2S’s lack of response, which itself constituted a breach of the CAP Code.
Why this matters
Talent agencies and any business that promotes individuals as affiliated with or available through their services should ensure they have an appropriate basis for doing so, such as a contractual relationship, before advertising those individuals publicly. Misleading impressions created through a website may be sufficient to constitute a breach of the CAP Code. The ruling also highlights that a failure to cooperate with the ASA constitutes a separate breach, underscoring the importance of responding promptly to ASA enquiries.
