Who: The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) and Airbrush
Where: United Kingdom
When: 29 July 2026
Law stated as at: 11 August 2026
What happened
The ASA has upheld complaints against ads for Airbrush UK, a hair styling company.
A paid-for social media ad and company website featured content that displayed a product image of the “Airbrush 5-in-1” hair styling tool alongside logos of major fashion magazines. The ad and website content were challenged as misleadingly implying that the fashion magazines had endorsed the Airbrush product. Airbrush did not respond to the ASA’s enquiries, and no evidence of genuine endorsements was provided. The ASA found that consumers would indeed interpret the placement of the fashion brand logos as alleged and concluded that the ads were misleading on this point.
Another ad featured videos of women using hair styling tools, with a voice-over discussing the advantages of the Airbrush 5-in-1. The product listing page also included images of women using hair styling tools under the heading “As Seen On You”. They were challenged as misleadingly using unrelated influencer content to promote the product.
The ASA found that consumers would understand the videos to show the individuals featured using the Airbrush 5-in-1 and endorsing the product. In reality, however, the products shown in the videos bore different branding and were not the Airbrush 5-in-1. The ASA concluded that the ads were misleading in implying that the products used in the videos were the Airbrush 5-in-1.
Testimonials and accompanying images displayed on the website were also challenged as not being genuine. The ASA considered that consumers would expect the reviews and testimonials displayed to represent genuine views from customers who had used the Airbrush 5-in-1. However, the images accompanying the reviews attributed to “Anna S.” and “Laura C.” featured design elements associated with another brand’s product, while the image accompanying the review attributed to “Emma T.” appeared to have been taken from an unrelated social media user. With Airbrush failing to respond to the ASA’s enquiries, no evidence was provided to demonstrate that the testimonials were genuine. The ASA therefore concluded that they were misleading.
Why this matters
This ruling demonstrates that product reviews and testimonials should be genuine and relate to the actual product advertised. Using visuals depicting competitors’ products, or presenting testimonials attributable to other products as one’s own, risks ASA investigation and adverse rulings.
Businesses will also want to keep an eye on the broader picture and consumer law. The Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024 made fake reviews, concealed incentivised reviews and false or misleading consumer review information, prohibited practices. The Competition and Markets Authority now has direct powers to impose fines on businesses for breaches of consumer law, further increasing the enforcement risk.
