Research commissioned by the ASA into consumer attitudes to the provision of material information in online ads finds that consumers generally accept material information being “one click away”, though they expect key details upfront in higher-risk contexts. The findings do not alter the ASA’s existing regulatory approach under the Advertising Codes.
The ASA’s report on environmental claims in UK online advertising finds that, while such claims are relatively rare, they frequently use high-risk absolute terms such as “eco-friendly” and “sustainable” that require significant substantiation under the CAP Code.
The ASA has ruled on whether environmental claims in an advertiser’s ads regarding British beef and dairy could be considered misleading.
The ASA ruled that 111skin’s “Exosome Face Lift” product listing made efficacy claims that could not be substantiated and exaggerated the effects of the product, in breach of the CAP Code.
The UK has prohibited tobacco and vaping advertising under the Tobacco and Vapes Act 2026, while the European Commission consults on modernising its own tobacco advertising and product rules.
The ASA has banned social media posts featuring Harry Kane and Erling Haaland as gambling ads with strong appeal to under-18s, while clearing an advertiser’s use of Thierry Henry against a backdrop of increased ASA scrutiny on the issue. An enforcement notice signals active monitoring from 11 June 2026.
ASA rules that a dance app using a money back model cannot be descried as “free”.
Two recent ASA rulings have addressed the extent to which advertisers can reference ADHD when promoting consumer products.
The ICO has published guidance on a new PECR exception, introduced by the Data (Use and Access) Act 2025, that allows charities to send electronic marketing to individuals without prior consent subject to conditions.
The Court of Appeal holds that the test for consent under the UK GDPR and PECR is objective.
The ASA ruled that a Gecko Play ad comparing gambling to eating pistachios trivialised gambling and encouraged socially irresponsible behaviour, in breach of the CAP Code.
The ASA ruled against The Pizza Company because its promotional packaging misled consumers into believing all products were eligible for a prize draw.
