The UK’s Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) has banned online adverts by Nike, Superdry and Lacoste for making environmental claims that the regulator said were unclear, ambiguous and unsupported by evidence.
The paid-for Google ads used terms such as “sustainable”, “sustainable materials” and “sustainable style” but did not provide substantiation for those claims. Nike’s advert for tennis polo shirts referred to “sustainable materials”, which the company said was intended as a general statement and not applicable to all products. Superdry argued its reference to “style and sustainability” highlighted that it produced a range of items with sustainability attributes. Lacoste, promoting children’s clothing, acknowledged that phrases including “green” and “eco-friendly” were “very difficult to substantiate”.
The ASA said environmental claims must be clear and backed by a “high level of substantiation”. It found that, in each case, the use of the term “sustainable” lacked accompanying information, rendering the claim “ambiguous and unclear”. The regulator added that it had not seen evidence demonstrating that the products were not harmful to the environment across their full life cycle.
All three ads have been banned, and the retailers were instructed to ensure future environmental claims are clearly explained and supported by robust evidence.
In a separate ruling, the ASA also banned a Betway advert featuring Formula One driver Sir Lewis Hamilton. The paid-for Facebook ad, which ran ahead of the British Grand Prix, showed three drivers from behind, with Hamilton’s name visible on one uniform. A complainant argued that Hamilton’s appearance breached rules prohibiting gambling ads from featuring individuals likely to strongly appeal to under-18s.
Betway accepted Hamilton’s broad appeal among young people but said the ad reduced that appeal by not showing his face. The ASA disagreed, finding that the figure would still be easily identifiable as Hamilton, including to those under 18. It concluded that the ad was “irresponsible and breached the code”.
