Regulator in the firing line: ASA accused of misleading public with its own ads

The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA), the independent regulatory body for advertising and marketing in the UK has been accused of making misleading claims in its own advertising campaign. 

Adverts published by the ASA as part of an advertising campaign in collaboration with Tesco, Lloyds and Comparethemarket in September 2025, included the claims “We regulate ads across all media, including online” and “We regulate UK ads, wherever you see or hear them”. Whilst the ASA does regulate a large number of adverts across different forms of advertising in the UK, they received a complaint that its claims were inaccurate because some forms of advertising media sit outside of the ASA’s remit 

The Complaint 

The complaint was submitted by New Weather Institute, a research organisation with a focus on a fair economy in the context of sustainability and Badvertising, a campaign run by the New Weather Institute which aims to end advertising and sponsorships which, they feel, contribute to climate issues. You might wonder why they filed a complaint against an ad that appears to be unrelated to sustainability and climate issues. Their gripe was with the fact that the ASA had dismissed previous complaints made by Badvertising and another campaign group, Adfree Cities, on the basis that the media in which those adverts were published were outside the ASA’s scope. It seemed hypocritical therefore that the ASA could now claim to regulate ‘all media’.

In particular, the previous complaints alleged that third party advertisers had made misleading environmental claims, in the following forms of media which the ASA said that it could not consider as it does not have authority to do so:

• Pitch-side hoardings at a football match
• A digital billboard in an airline’s designated space at an airport
• An advertiser’s own social media page (in a non paid-for space)
• On a social media platform not based in the UK posted by a non-UK business  

The complaint highlights the fact that despite such adverts reaching a large audience in the UK, the ASA does not have the power to enforce the advertising codes against advertisers where claims (which would ordinarily be in breach of the codes) are published in media which sits outside of the ASA’s regulatory remit. 

The complaint urges the ASA to consider its ‘all media’ and “We regulate UK ads, wherever you see or hear them” claims against the parts of the advertising codes relating to misleading advertising.

The complaint also highlights a number of the common issues that complainants face when engaging in the advertising complaints process, including the length of time it can take for the investigation to be carried out and a decision issued by the ASA and the limits of the ASA’s enforcement powers as it is not able to issue financial or legal penalties which may further deter advertisers from breaching the advertising codes.

The Guardian has reported that the ASA has declined to investigate the complaint about its own advertising as it would “not be appropriate”. The complaint and the ASA’s subsequent refusal to engage in an investigation into its own advertising raises some serious points for consideration.

The limits of the ASA’s enforcement powers

The complaint highlights the limits of the ASA’s power as a regulator. There are a number of areas which the ASA does not have authority over, such as those highlighted in the complaint. This is despite adverts in such areas reaching a large number of consumers in the UK. This means that potentially harmful ads can be circulated to a large audience with no real repercussions.

Additionally, whilst the ASA does have the power to refer advertisers who breach the advertising codes to bodies like Trading Standards or Ofcom who have greater enforcement powers, its own attempts at enforcing the advertising codes against non-compliant advertisers rely heavily on advertisers’ cooperation and the threat of negative PR backlash that non-compliant advertisers may face. Advertisers, therefore, may be less inclined to comply with the advertising codes.  

Lastly, the complaints process is reactive rather than preventative. By the time a complainant has engaged with the complaints process and the ASA has investigated and issued a decision, a potentially harmful advert could have been in circulation for a significant period of time and viewed by many.

The importance of getting it right 

Whilst there do not seem to be any repercussions for the ASA in relation to its own advertising, the complaint highlights that campaigners are pro-active in drawing attention to claims in advertising which breach the advertising codes.

Whilst the ASA may not always have the authority to investigate such complaints, there is still a risk of negative press where these issues are raised. Where the ASA do have the remit to investigate a complaint and a complaint is upheld, the repercussions are an advert being banned and adverse publicity and public scrutiny. 

Campaign groups and competitors are clued up on the advertising codes and actively look for advertisements which they feel are not compliant. As topics such as climate change become increasingly important, complainants will only become more determined to call out instances of bad advertising practice, meaning advertisers need to get it right in order to avoid public scrutiny, regardless of the fact there may be no legal or financial repercussions from any complaint to the ASA.  

Does the current system need to be changed?

The ASA’s refusal to investigate complaints about its own advertising appears to be the conclusion of the complaint. The lack of any investigative process where the advertising regulator is alleged to be in breach of the advertising codes may undermine confidence in the ASA’s processes and ultimately lead to less compliance with the advertising codes if the very body enforcing the codes is seen to be non-compliant with them.

Campaigners such as Adfree cities are calling for a more robust regulator with greater enforcement powers and the power to impose greater sanctions to avoid potentially harmful adverts from being overlooked.

Conclusion 

Overall, it is clear that campaigners are passionate about compliance with the advertising codes in the UK and this is only likely to increase as hot topics such as misleading environmental claims become increasingly important on the public agenda. This will put pressure on advertisers to ensure compliance with the codes. 

However, the main repercussion for breaching the codes is negative press and public backlash, rather than any meaningful regulatory sanction from the ASA. The ASA has limitations both in terms of remit and enforcement and this recent complaint highlights these limits. It remains to be seen whether change will be made in this area, giving a regulator a broader remit and the power to impose greater sanctions on advertisers who push the limits with their advertising, which would be welcomed by many.