Background
This Ruling forms part of a wider piece of work on unregulated investments. The ad was identified for investigation following intelligence gathered by our Active Ad Monitoring system, which uses AI to proactively search for online ads that might break the rules. See also related rulings published on 10 June 2026.
Summary of Council decision:
Two issues were investigated, both of which were Upheld.
Ad description
A paid-for Meta ad for 7879.co, an online retailer of gold and platinum jewellery, seen on 13 March 2026, featured text stating “[Diamond emoji] Wearable Investments – 7879 crafts pure 24k gold and 999 platinum investment-grade jewellery. [Chart Increasing emoji] Track Your Jewellery’s Value in Real Time with our online portfolio – sell it back anytime. [Tick emoji] Lifetime Warranty …”.A video in the ad showing someone handling different pieces of jewellery had a voice-over which stated, “I’ve never had a piece of jewellery turn heads and turn into an asset until now […] It’s pure gold 24 carat and apparently the brand 7879 sells everything by weight like actual bullion. So when I bought it, it got added to this digital portfolio where I can track its market value in real time […] So now I’ve got this piece that I genuinely love wearing and at the same time it’s technically an asset. If I ever want to sell it I can. Gold prices go up. So does its value. It’s like buying something special for now but also smart for later […]”.
Issue
The ASA challenged whether the ad:
- was misleading because it did not make clear material information about the risks of the investments; and
- breached the Code because it did not make clear that the value of investments was variable.
Response
1.Tarvos Ltd t/a 7879 said it was a luxury jewellery retailer, not a gold dealer, bullion trader or investment scheme. They said they sold wearable jewellery made from pure 24 carat gold and 999 platinum and that customers bought its products to wear, rather than as financial products.They stated that their model differed from conventional jewellery because its products were priced by metal weight plus a transparent premium. Customers could then track the current metal value through a digital portfolio, and they could use a buyback service under which 7879 would repurchase items at the portfolio price, less a 9% fee.
7879 said it did not offer or promote investments, and they did not consider the ad to be a financial promotion. They said the term “investment grade” referred to the purity and quality of its jewellery, and that “Wearable Investments” was intended to describe the fact that, unlike conventional jewellery, its products retained tangible resale value because of their purity and the buyback service. They said those were product descriptions, not claims about returns or invitations to invest. They also said their website included disclaimers stating that the company was not Financial Conduct Authority regulated, did not provide financial advice, that precious metal values could go down as well as up, and that consumers could not use the protections offered by the Financial Services Compensation Scheme and Financial Ombudsman Service.
2. 7879 said the claim “Gold prices go up. So does its value” was not intended to suggest guaranteed growth. They accepted however that, taken alone, the claim could be read as implying a one-way price movement, but said the ad as a whole referred to trackable value and resale options rather than guaranteed returns. They also said their digital portfolio showed live market prices, including when values fell, and that they had never told customers that gold prices were guaranteed to rise.
They said their website carried full risk warnings, in both consumers’ portfolio pages and their terms and conditions, that stated that buyers could receive back less than they had paid, that the buyback service could be withdrawn, and that there was no regulatory protection.
However, they said the ad had been removed from Meta following notification of the ASA’s investigation and would not be used again. They also said that they had reviewed their advertising and had taken steps to improve compliance.
Assessment
1. Upheld
The CAP Code required that material information should not be omitted and should be presented clearly.
The ASA understood that the physical gold and precious metals investment market was not regulated within the UK, nor was it subject to the protections afforded by the Financial Services Compensation Scheme or the Financial Ombudsman Service. We considered that was material information that consumers required in order to make informed decisions about 7879’s services.
The text of the ad described the products as “Wearable Investments” and “platinum investment-grade jewellery”. The video included claims such as “it’s technically an asset” and “Gold prices go up. So does its value”. While we acknowledged the advertiser’s position that they were a jewellery retailer and did not offer investments, the ad presented the products as having investment characteristics and implied that consumers could expect future financial gain from buying their products. We therefore considered the ad to be for an investment product.
The ad, which was limited by space, contained no information stating that gold and platinum investment was unregulated. While we acknowledged that such information was included elsewhere, including within the terms and conditions on the website and individual customer portfolios, that information did not appear in the ad or prominently on the landing page.
Because the ad did not make clear that physical gold and precious metal investment was unregulated, we concluded that it was misleading. We also noted that information did not appear prominently, on the linked landing page.
On that point, the ad breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1 and 3.3 (Misleading advertising).
2. Upheld
Section 14 of the CAP Code, which reflected rules prescribed by the FCA on promotional material for regulated investments, required that financial marketing communications not regulated by the FCA should make clear that the value of investments was variable and, unless guaranteed, could go down as well as up.
Given the greater potential for significant financial harm resulting from financial marketing communications, those rules were additional to and more prescriptive than the rules on misleading advertising. That meant that relevant risk warnings prescribed by section 14 of the CAP Code needed to be in the initial ad and not later in the consumer journey, for instance on a landing page, or in the terms and conditions.
We also noted that FCA guidance for regulated investments in social media stated that firms should ensure that where possible, information that was required to be prominent be displayed without needing to click through, or any other optional action, to view it.
While we acknowledged that the terms and conditions, and customer portfolio pages contained a risk warning that investments could go down as well as up, that information was not included within the ad. We therefore concluded that the ad breached the Code.
On that point, the ad breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rule 14.4 (Financial products).
Action
The ad must not appear again in the form complained about. We told Tarvos Ltd t/a 7879.co to ensure that future marketing made clear that physical gold and precious metal investment was unregulated. We further told them to make clear that the value of investments was variable and could go down as well as up.
