Note: This advice is given by the CAP Executive about non-broadcast advertising. It does not constitute legal advice. It does not bind CAP, CAP advisory panels or the Advertising Standards Authority.
Rule 3.11 states, “Marketing communications must not mislead consumers by exaggerating the capability or performance of a product”. Advertisers obviously want to present their products in the best possible light, but they must be careful that they do not go so far as to mislead consumers.
Misrepresenting typical performance
Qualifications may be insufficient to override the exaggeration
Obvious exaggerations (“puffery”)
Unsubstantiated claims
In the summer of 2025, the ASA initiated several investigations into ads for mini coolers. They found that many ads were making incredible claims about their products’ capabilities. One ad for a portable AC unit claimed that it could “Cool any room in seconds”, but the advertisers were unable to provide evidence to the ASA. In the absence of such evidence, the ASA concluded that the ad exaggerated the effectiveness of the product (Ecom7 Ltd, 26 November 2025). See also Electrical Mini Coolers.
Another ad made similar claims about rapidly cooling a room, but also claimed that their product was a cheaper alternative to traditional air conditioning. Again, the advertiser did not provide evidence for these claims. The ASA considered that the product was highly unlikely to be a viable source of efficient cooling, and concluded that the claim exaggerated the product’s capabilities (UAB CommerceCore t/a NuraBreeze, 26 November 2025).
The ASA also investigated an ad for a course aimed at business owners that claimed they could “grow their business overnight 30 to 130 percent, 180 percent with 2 or 3 changes”. The ad also contained testimonials from individuals that claimed the course had led to their business succeeding. The ASA considered that the ad implied the results were typical, and requested substantiation that this was the case. They also expected evidence for the objective claims within the testimonials, as advertisers must hold proof for these (rule 3.49). In the absence of evidence for objective claims about the course outcomes, the ASA concluded that the ad was misleading (Robbins Research International Inc t/a Tony Robbins, 15 October 2025).
See also Claims in testimonials and endorsements.
Misrepresenting typical performance
While it is understandable that advertisers want to present their products in the best light, ads must be an accurate representation of what consumers can expect.
An ad for an app designed to track menstrual cycles claimed that it was a “highly accurate” contraceptive app. The ASA reviewed studies provided by the advertiser, which found that there was a substantial difference in efficacy between perfect use and typical use. The ASA also noted that only 9.6% of users used the app perfectly. Additionally, typical use was significantly less effective than the most reliable contraceptive methods. The ASA therefore concluded that the ad was likely to mislead by exaggerating the efficacy of the app (NaturalCycles Nordic AB Sweden t/a Natural Cycles, 29 August 2018).
Visual claims
Claims in ads are not limited to text only – the visuals can also give a misleading impression of the product.
The ASA investigated a TV ad for mascara after receiving a complaint that the ad exaggerated the effects of the product. The ASA reviewed photos of the model’s eyes without any enhancements, with lash inserts (before the mascara was applied), and then with full post-production techniques, which included the applied mascara and some individual lashes re-drawn for enhanced visibility. The ASA determined that the lash inserts and post-production techniques resulted in imagery that was likely to exaggerate the effect of the mascara (Coty UK Ltd, 19 April 2017). See also Beauty and Cosmetics: The use of production techniques.
In 2022, the ASA received complaints about TikTok ads for video games. The complainants objected that the footage used in the ads was not representative of the game. Even though some of the gameplay mechanics were accurate to the game, the ASA understood that the graphics and speed of the game were not accurate, among other features, and concluded that the ads had exaggerated the performance of the game (Rivergame Ltd, 16 November 2022).
A webpage selling dash cams claimed that the products were “capable of picking up the finer details such as number plates and road signs even in extreme low-light conditions”. The page contained additional claims that the dash cams were able to provide clear views at night, including an image of a motorway at night, with clear and readable number plates. The ASA considered that consumers would interpret this image to be a still from footage taken by one of their cameras. However, the image was actually a stock photo to which the advertiser added readable number plates. The advertiser provided night vision footage from the ad’s high-end model, but it did not show the same level of detail as the stock photo. The ASA concluded that the ad exaggerated the capability of the advertised products (Portable Multimedia Ltd, 5 June 2024).
Qualifications may be insufficient to override the exaggeration
The ASA upheld two complaints against a meal delivery service ad for giving a misleading impression of what customers would receive. Imagery in press ads showed ready meals, which were plated with rice, potatoes, or vegetables. Complainants objected that these images did not represent the product accurately, as the rice, potatoes and vegetables sides were not included as part of the meal. The ASA deemed that the small text stating that this was a “serving suggestion” was insufficient to make clear that consumers would not receive the full plate (Parsley Box Ltd, 13 November 2019).
Another business course ad made earnings claim of £20,000 - £30,000 per month, and six figures a year, for four hours of work a day. The ad included a qualification that the income claims showed what was possible, but were not typical, and were dependent on other factors. The ASA considered that this qualification contradicted the main claims, which exaggerated typical outcomes of the course (Self Made Girl Boss Ltd, 15 October 2025).
For further guidance on the use of qualifications, see Misleading advertising: Qualifications and CAP's Advertising Guidance on the use of qualifications.
Obvious exaggerations (“puffery”)
The CAP Code explicitly allows obvious exaggerations (“puffery”) that average consumers are unlikely to take literally, provided that they do not materially mislead average consumers (rule 3.2). Whether an exaggeration is obvious or not is likely to depend on the context of the ad and the nature of the product itself.
The ASA investigated a car ad which claimed, “LIFE IS SO MUCH BETTER WITHOUT RESTRICTIONS”. Complainants objected that this implied that the car was above restrictions or rules. The ad had been released around the time that COVID-19 restrictions were easing, and the ad contained other indications that this was the context for the claim (such as additional text which read “there are still restrictions as life slowly gets back to normal”). With this context, the ASA considered that consumers were unlikely to be misled (Jaguar Land Rover Ltd, 24 November 2021).
On the other hand, the ASA ruled that the claim “friction free” was misleading, in the context of a razor subscription service. The advertiser explained that they had intended the phrase to refer to the ease of purchasing razors with an online subscription. They also objected that the claim was unlikely to be taken literally, as consumers would understand that it was impossible for a razor to provide a friction-free shave, and was therefore an obvious exaggeration. However, the ASA considered that, in the context of an ad for shaving products, consumers were likely to understand the claim “Friction Free Shaving” as objective claims that the advertiser’s products would result in a friction-free shave and without the negative aspects of shaving (Friction Free Shaving Ltd, 15 January 2020).
See also Types of claims: Puffery and expressions of opinion.
Additional guidance
Claims for products in the health, beauty and slimming sectors should refer to Substantiation for health, beauty and slimming claims and Guidance on the level of substantiation expected in health, beauty and slimming claims.
For advice related to distorted pricing, please refer to Prices: General.
See also Misleading advertising, and Substantiation.