Background
Summary of Council decision:
Two issues were investigated, both of which were Upheld.
Ad description
A paid-for Google search ad for eBay seen on 8 March 2025 included a full-length image of a woman with a very large bust, wearing a top which exposed most of her breasts. Text underneath stated, “A21 Voluptuous Busty model…”, followed by pricing information and the text “eBay” and “By Genie”. The ad was displayed in a carousel of results delivered following a Google search for “eBay UK”.
Issue
The complainant, who believed the ad sexually objectified women, challenged whether the ad was:
- offensive and irresponsible; and
- appropriately targeted.
Response
Glamour Shots did not respond to the ASA’s enquiries.
Genie Ventures Ltd t/a Genie confirmed that they acted as an affiliate marketing partner of eBay, promoting products via Google Shopping based on product feeds provided by eBay. They stated that, because of the high number of products in eBay’s catalogue, ad selection was fully automated and was not reviewed manually. Because of that, the ad was inadvertently shown.
They accepted that the ad breached CAP Code rules on harm and offence, acknowledging that its imagery and language were inappropriate and likely to cause offence. They emphasised that the ad was not manually chosen, nor intentionally featured, but accepted responsibility for the failure. They also agreed that the ad did not meet the standards of social responsibility as it appeared in an untargeted environment without appropriate safeguards.
Genie said they welcomed the ASA’s guidance and in response to the complaint, had taken several actions, which included a full audit of their product filtering and ad-serving systems, the introduction of updated filters to block sexually explicit or adult content, and a broader process review to introduce additional automated and manual controls.
Google Ireland Ltd stated that it was Genie’s responsibility to abide by applicable laws and regulations, including the CAP Code under the terms they agreed to. They stated that all shopping ads must comply with the general Google ad policies and the specific shopping ad policies, including in relation to “Adult content” and “Non-family safe” content. They stated that Google did not show shopping ads containing permissible “Adult content” on its general search results pages, but may show Shopping ads containing permissible “Non-family safe” content if the user had SafeSearch turned off.
Assessment
The ASA was concerned by Glamour Shots' 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 respond promptly to our enquiries and told them to do so in future.
1. & 2. Upheld
The ad depicted a woman bending over in a pose that emphasised her breasts, to the extent that her chest was almost fully exposed. The ASA therefore considered she was depicted in a manner that was sexually suggestive and that her body was made the central focus of the ad. We considered that the description “A21 Voluptuous, busty model” further drew attention to the model’s chest which added to that overall impression. In addition, we considered that description had the effect of anonymising the model and invited viewers to view her body as a sexual object. We therefore concluded that the ad was likely to cause serious offence and included a gender stereotype in a way that was likely to cause harm.
We understood the ad appeared as part of a carousel of paid search results without any targeting restrictions following a Google search for “eBay UK” on the internet browser of a mobile device. The search term used was general and unrelated to adult content. The ad was therefore likely to have been seen by a broad audience, including children. We therefore considered, in addition to the ad including a gender stereotype that was likely to cause harm, that the ad had been irresponsibly targeted because it was sexually suggestive.
Because we considered that this specific ad was likely to cause serious offence and included a gender stereotype in a way that was likely to cause harm, it was not suitable to be featured in any paid-for search ad.
While we acknowledged the ad was for a photo that featured sexually suggestive content, we considered the advertiser must ensure that their ads did not feature content which was likely to cause offence or harm.
On points 1 and 2, we concluded the ad breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 1.3 (Social responsibility), 4.1 (Harm and offence), and 4.9 (Gender stereotypes).
Action
The ad must not appear again in the form complained of. We told Glamour Shots to ensure their ads were prepared responsibly in the future and did not sexualise and objectify women. We referred the matter to CAP’s Compliance team.
