Siloed communication: cruise liner makes pricing change not reflected in promotion
The ASA rules that admin errors do not excuse misleading promotional discounts.
The ASA rules that admin errors do not excuse misleading promotional discounts.
The ASA has found a pricing claim misleading due to the omission of material information.
The ASA rules that Trainline’s best price guarantee constituted a unsubstantiated lowest price claim.
The ASA has upheld a complaint that an ad for shower gel included a racial stereotype and was therefore likely to cause serious offence.
The ASA considered whether the models in four ads on Zara’s website appeared unhealthily thin. It deemed two ads irresponsible on that basis, while finding no breach in the other two. This ruling shows that “unhealthily thin” is about representation within an ad, not just a model’s size.
The ASA turns its attention to “greenwashing” in the cruise liner industry, using its active ad monitoring system to identify ads worthy of investigation.
ASA research and rulings shed light on the use of claims like “recyclable”, “compostable” and “biodegradable”.
The government makes the Advertising (Less Healthy Food and Drink) (Brand Advertising Exemption) Regulations 2025, which provide clarity on the “brand advertising” exemption to new HFSS TV and online ad restrictions.
The ASA rules that dynamic pricing and use of third party data are not reasons to excuse LoveHolidays for displaying out-of-date and inaccurate prices.
The ASA found that ads for Aramco’s F1 partnership did not contain environmental claims.
The ASA ruled against Viridian International for misleading advertising claims, including “no junk” and “100% active ingredients,” and for disparaging competitors.
The ASA investigates M&S clothing ads, drawing distinction between ads when a model was considered unhealthy thin and not.