Background
Summary of Council decision:
Three issues were investigated, all of which were Upheld.
Ad description
Two paid-for Facebook ads and a website for Airbrush UK, a hair styling company, seen in April 2026.
a. The first Facebook ad featured an image of the Airbrush 5-in-1. Below the image, text stated “SEE ON” followed by the logos for Marie Claire, GQ, Allure, and Cosmopolitan.
b. The second Facebook ad featured the text “The Secret to Gorgeous Hair? Airbrush Pro!”. A video featured a voice-over which stated, “Why is short hair ALWAYS impossible? £400 Dyson and I still look like I stuck my finger in a socket […] Then I tried Airbrush 5-in-1. One tool, five benefits. Smooth, shiny, detangles, fizz free, volume, all in seconds. My short hair finally behaves. I can style it quickly, it feels soft, shiny, alive, no effort wasted. Stop paying for fancy dryers to get ignored by your own hair. Grab Airbrush 5-in-1 50% off today. Short hair done right.” The video featured a woman using a hair styling tool, which featured the brand name Beauty Works.
c. The website www.getairbrushuk.com, featured the title “airbrush” and a large product image. The logos for fashion magazines Elle, Vogue, Allure and Harper’s Bazaar featured below the image. The product image and name for the “Airbrush 5-in-1” featured alongside five white stars in green boxes and the number “1,307”. Below the heading “You [sic] Turn To Join The Glow-Up”, an image carousel featured five, five-star reviews, alongside five images of different women. The reviews featured the names “Anna S.”, “Emma T.”, “Laura C.”. Further down the page, below the heading “They tested it, approved it, and adopted it”, four videos featured different women using hair styling tools.
The product listing page for the Airbrush 5-in-1 featured five white stars in green squares with a cut-in below the right-hand point, next to the text “Excellent 4.8 on 5 [sic]”. Images of women using hair styling tools featured under the heading “As Seen On You”. The page featured reviews, including 1,116, five-star reviews and 491, four-star reviews. Several reviews featured images, showing women holding hair styling products, and showing different hair styles.
Issue
BBC Watchdog challenged whether:
1. ads (a) and (c) misleadingly implied the product had been endorsed by major fashion brands;
2. ads (b) and (c) misleadingly used unrelated influencer content to promote the product; and
3. the testimonials in ad (c) were genuine.
Response
Airbrush UK did not respond to the ASA’s enquiries.
Assessment
The ASA was concerned by Airbrush UK’s lack of response and apparent disregard for the Code, which was a breach of CAP Code (Edition 12) rule 1.7 (Unreasonable delay). We reminded them of their responsibility to provide a response to our enquiries and told them to do so in the future.
1. Upheld
Ad (a) featured the brand logos for Marie Claire, GQ, Allure, and Cosmopolitan. Ad (c) featured a rolling carousel with the brand logos for Elle, Vogue, Allure and Harper’s Bazaar. We considered that consumers would understand from the placement of the brand logos that the Airbrush 5-in-1 hair styling tool had been endorsed by those publications.
Airbrush UK did not respond to our enquiries, so we had not seen any evidence that the endorsements were genuine. We also found no evidence on the websites of the publications listed above that Airbrush had featured in them.
Because we had not seen any evidence that the Airbrush 5-in-1 had been endorsed by the publications present in the ads, we concluded that ads (a) and (c) were misleading.
On that point, ads (a) and (c) breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1 (Misleading advertising), 3.7 (Substantiation) and 3.47 (Endorsements and testimonials).
2. Upheld
Ad (b) featured a video of a woman using a hair styling tool whilst the voice-over discussed the advantages of Airbrush 5-in-1. Ad (c) featured videos of women using hair styling tools. We considered that consumers would understand the videos to be examples of people using the Airbrush 5-in-1, and to represent endorsements for that product by the people featured.
We understood that the products used in the videos were not the Airbrush 5-in-1. The hair styling tool seen in ad (b) featured the brand name “Beauty Works”. The videos in ad (c) appeared to feature several different hair styling tools. The “Beauty Works” branding could be seen on the product in one video, along with a distinctive, thin, gold band, which was not present on the Airbrush 5-in-1. Other videos featured products that did not bear the Airbrush branding, which could be seen on the product in the product listing photos.
Because ads (b) and (c) implied that the products shown being used in the videos were the Airbrush 5-in-1, when that was not the case, we concluded that the ads were misleading.
On that point, ads (b) and (c) breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1 (Misleading advertising), 3.7 (Substantiation) and 3.47 (Endorsements and testimonials).
3. Upheld
We considered consumers would expect the reviews and testimonials in ad (c) to be genuine views of customers who had used the Airbrush 5-in-1.
The images accompanying the reviews of ‘Anna S’. and ‘Laura C’ featured products with a thin, gold band seen on the “Beauty Works” hair styling tool. We understood the image accompanying the review of ‘Emma T’ had been taken from an unrelated social media user. We considered that the use of images featuring other products, and an apparently unrelated image, was likely to mean that the testimonials were not genuine.
Given that Airbrush UK did not respond to our enquiries, we had not received any evidence that the testimonials were genuine or received any contact details for the people who gave them.
We therefore concluded that the testimonials in ad (c) were misleading.
On that point, ad (c) breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1 (Misleading advertising), 3.44 and 3.47 (Endorsements and testimonials).
Action
The ads must not appear again in the forms complained of. We told Airbrush UK to ensure their ads did not misleadingly imply they were endorsed by fashion brands. We also told them not to misleadingly use content relating to competitor products to promote their product. We also told them to ensure they held substantiation to show that any testimonials used were genuine. We referred the matter to the CAP Compliance team.
