This article was originally published by The Drum on 9 September 2025 with the headline ‘I'm head of investigations at the ASA. Let's talk about our size 0 models rulings’. The original version is available to subscribers only. Republished here with permission.
Heavy handed or light touch regulation? Our recent rulings on fashion ads featuring unhealthily thin-looking models that we’ve deemed irresponsible have sparked debate over whether our decisions strike the right balance.
Societal attitudes towards the ‘ideal’ female body shape have regularly shifted – from ‘heroin chic’, to the body positivity movement, to the ‘slim thick’ aesthetic. Advertising has frequently mirrored those trends and, at times, played a role in driving them – not always to society’s benefit.
The question is: are we seeing history repeat itself? Is ‘skinny’ making a comeback?
Some signs point that way. Vogue Business’s most recent size inclusivity report showed another decline in the representation of mid- and plus-size models across New York, London, Milan and Paris runways, attributing this to the rise of Ozempic and a shift to more conservative ideals. Of the 8,703 looks presented on autumn/winter 2025 runways across 198 womenswear shows, 97.7% were shown on straight-size models between a US size 0–4 (the equivalent of a UK size 4–8).
This shift may be starting to spill over into advertising. In the past eight months, we’ve ruled against campaigns from Marks & Spencer, Next and Zara for portraying models as unhealthily thin-looking. Complaints about similar ads are also increasing, averaging five or six a week and spiking after our high-profile rulings.
Whether or not there is an enduring trend here, this matters to the public. Our recent survey on attitudes towards advertising found that 45% of the UK public are concerned about ads that feature idealised body images of women.
With good reason. For many, particularly young or already vulnerable people, harmful body ideals can contribute to negative body image and low self-esteem, and have detrimental impacts on mental and physical wellbeing. While girls and women are often most discussed in this context, boys and men are also affected, as highlighted in a recent body image review, which found that ads can fuel pressures around muscularity, leanness and unrealistic strength ideals. Advertising is not, of course, the only factor in this, but it is one the ad industry has the power to control.
So where do we draw the line on ‘skinny’ models? Our rules have long required ads to be socially responsible, and our guidance advises against portraying unhealthily thin-looking body shapes as glamorous, desirable or aspirational. But that doesn’t ban thin or lean models per se. When we assess ads, we focus on how models are presented and the effect on audiences, not the health of the models themselves. Small details can make all the difference. Lighting, styling, makeup and camera angle can contribute to a model appearing thinner than they are and an ad being judged irresponsible. Often, these issues could be avoided with different creative choices. In our ruling against Next, the same model deemed irresponsible in one pose appeared responsibly in others – showing how presentation makes all the difference.
A question we’re often asked is why our rulings focus on thin models and not on models who appear unhealthily overweight, especially given rising concerns about obesity. The answer lies in the broader societal context. In the UK, thinness is often seen as aspirational, while overweight body types generally are not. While we do receive complaints about models in ads who may appear unhealthily overweight, we haven’t, to date, had the grounds to investigate these because the ads don’t promote such body types as ideals to aspire to. In fact, including models with larger or more diverse body shapes is often seen as part of a positive, inclusive narrative, countering the message that only thinness is desirable.
It’s important to remember that our rulings don’t exist in isolation; they sit within a wider cultural backdrop – one where weight-loss drugs are reshaping conversations about our bodies, fashion houses are once again leaning into slim silhouettes, and debates about beauty standards are centre stage.
Our recent rulings, the uptick in complaints and these societal debates should serve as a clear wake-up call for the industry. The portrayal of unhealthily thin-looking body types is under increasing scrutiny, and the public is paying attention.
We’re in a moment where thinness is celebrated and pharmaceuticals are changing the conversation around bodies and weight. Our message to the industry is simple: be aware of what impact your creative choices may have on different audiences.
Our job is to protect the public from advertising that can cause real harm. Advertising will always reflect, and to an extent shape, cultural ideals, but that influence comes with responsibility. The ASA will continue to hold advertisers to account, because creativity should never come at the expense of people’s mental or physical wellbeing – and that is a line we won’t hesitate to defend.
More on
-
Jo Poots
Head of Operations (Complaints and Investigations)
-
Keep up to date
Sign up to our rulings, newsletters and emargoed access for Press. Subscribe now.
Jo became Head of Operations for Complaints and Investigations in December 2013, having previously held a wide range of roles in the organisation. She has oversight of the day to day effectiveness of the teams that assess and investigate complaints and plays a leading role in the wider corporate activities of the ASA management team. Jo had a Business and Marketing degree from the University of Ulster.
