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 3 December 2025.
Summary of Council decision:
Two issues were investigated, both of which were Upheld.
Ad description
A paid-for Google ad for Artscapy, an art investment company, seen on 6 May featured the title “Make your first art investment – Join 7,000+ happy collectors” and contained the text “Insider investment opportunities and personalised wealth-building advice. The end-to-end investment account: from acquisition to return”.
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 the value of investments was variable.
Response
1. Artscapy Ltd t/a Artscapy said they were not aware that they needed to explicitly state that art investment was unregulated within the UK and was not subject to the protections afforded by the Financial Services Compensation Scheme or the Financial Ombudsman Service but now understood the requirement.
2. They acknowledged that the ad could have been clearer regarding the variable nature of art investments. They said that Google ads operated within a strict character limit that significantly constrained the extent to which they could have provided a comprehensive disclaimer in the ad. They said despite these technical limitations, a detailed risk disclosure was on the landing page that linked from the ad, and within their terms and conditions. They also said that they were committed to ensuring that their future advertising would prominently feature clear language stating the value of art investments was variable and could go down as well as up.
They said the claim “acquisition to return”, was not intended to promise any specific magnitude of returns, or guarantee that there would be a net positive return or profit, but rather that their service supported the customer from purchase to sale. They also commented on the claim “personalised wealth-building advice" and said it was intended to describe their bespoke advisory services rather than promise guaranteed wealth creation.
However, they acknowledged that these phrases, without an accompanying risk factor, could have been misinterpreted as implying guaranteed positive returns, and said they would revise their advertising language to ensure risk factors were prominently displayed alongside any references to potential benefits, in order to eliminate misinterpretation.
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 art 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 Artscapy’s services.
The ad stated, “Make your first art investment” and made references to investment insights that offered “personalised wealth-building advice”. It also included the claim “The end-to-end investment account: from acquisition to return”, which we considered that consumers were likely to understand to mean that the service would help them throughout the investment process, from purchasing the art, to selling it for a return. Because of the references to investment, wealth-building and claims regarding the investment process it therefore was an ad for an investment product.
However, the Google ad, which was limited by space, contained no information stating that art investment was unregulated. The ad linked through to the Artscapy website which provided some information on their investment services, but this didn’t include that art investment was unregulated.
Because the ad did not make clear that art investment was unregulated, we concluded it was misleading. We noted also that the information did not appear, at all, 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 Financial Conduct Authority (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. 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 the need to click through, or any other optional action, to view it.
The ad included no risk warning to make clear that investments could go down as well as up.? We therefore concluded that it 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 Artscapy Ltd t/a Artscapy to ensure that future marketing made clear that art investment was unregulated. We told them to make clear that that the value of investments was variable and could go down as well as up.
