Background
This ruling forms part of a wider piece of ongoing work on the advertising of AI products across a number of sectors. The ads were 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.
Summary of Council decision:
Two issues were investigated, both of which were Upheld.
Ad description
Two paid-for Meta ads for Maxxing, an AI-powered app to maximise physical attractiveness (looksmaxxing):
a. The first ad, seen in May 2026, featured the caption "AI scans your face, style and confidence and then builds a custom glow-up plan just for you". The ad included a video with various scenes with a teenage boy including eating and looking tired.
On-screen text stated, "NEVER look unattractive again". His face was then mapped with electronic lines and patches of light on his eyes. Further on-screen text stated, "1. Scan your face". Text stating "2. Getting Results Using Maxxing” appeared over a photo of the man next to the text "Attractiveness 39", while "Masculinity 32", "Skin 21" and "Jawline 39" appeared with charts with a red scale, and "Potential 93" on a chart with a green scale.
It then featured a screen headed "Today's plan" with a to-do list with actions such as "Exfoliate your face with a gentle scrub". That was followed by a photo of a man with on-screen text: "93", and "Masculinity 85", "Potential 98", "Skin 79" and "Jawline 91". The man's head and shoulders were then shown in various poses.
b. The second ad, seen in March 2026, featured the caption "AI scans your face, style and confidence - then builds a custom glow-up plan just for you". The ad included a video with various close-up shots of a girl’s face.
On-screen text stated. "POV: 3 months of looksmaxxing". A photo of the girl’s face was then shown alongside the text "Attractiveness 5.4/10", while "Femininity 5.1", "Skin 3.6" and "Jawline 5.3" appeared with charts with a red scale, and "Potential 9.4" on a chart with a green scale.
A photo of a different young woman then appeared with the heading “Glow-Up in 28 Days” and the text “Dramatically improve your overall look and confidence within a month […] for a full body transformation. By addressing appearance […]”. It then featured a screen with a to-do list and panned down the list. It had actions such as “Apply a face or hair mask weekly”.
A video of another woman then appeared with on-screen text: “After Maxxing”. That was followed by a photo of the woman with on-screen text: "9.8/10", as well as " Femininity 9.2", "Potential 9.3", "Skin 9.7" and "Jawline 8.2".
Issue
The ASA challenged whether:
- the “before and after” photos and footage in the ads were genuine and an accurate reflection of what could be achieved with the product; and
- the ads were irresponsible and harmful because they exploited people’s insecurities around body image, and perpetuated harmful gender stereotypes by suggesting that happiness or wellbeing depended on conforming to gender-stereotypical norms.
Response
Glow Up LLC t/a Maxxing did not respond to the ASA’s enquiries.
Assessment
The ASA was concerned by Glow Up LLC t/a Maxxing’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 respond promptly to our enquiries and told them to do so in future.
1. Upheld
Ads (a) and (b) featured before-and-after footage and photos, which we considered created the impression that using the app would significantly alter someone’s appearance. We considered consumers would have understood the footage and photos to represent objective visual claims as to the app’s efficacy in changing someone’s physical appearance, even though both ads appeared to show different models at various times.
That impression was reinforced by the caption in both ads that stated, "AI scans your face, style and confidence and then builds a custom glow-up plan just for you", as well as the claims "NEVER look unattractive again" in ad (a), and “Glow-Up in 28 Days” and “Dramatically improve your overall look” in ad (b).
Furthermore, as we understood that the term “looksmaxxing” referred to maximising physical attractiveness, we considered the references to “Getting Results Using Maxxing” in ad (a), and “POV: 3 months of looksmaxxing” and “After Maxxing” in ad (b) also reinforced the impression that use of the app would lead to changes in appearance.
We considered that this impression was further reinforced by the numerical scores that rated different aspects of a person’s appearance including “attractiveness” in both ads that increased following use of the app.
As we had not seen any evidence to substantiate that the before-and-after footage and photos were genuine, including that they used the same models, or were representative of typical results, we concluded that the ads were misleading.
On that point, the ads breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1 (Misleading advertising), 3.7 (Substantiation) and 3.11 (Exaggeration).
2. Upheld
The CAP Code required that marketing communications must be prepared with a sense of responsibility to consumers and to society, and should not include gender stereotypes that were likely to cause harm.
Ad (a) included “before” images of a teenage boy. Ad (b) featured “before” images of a girl. We considered that young people, who might already be more body conscious because of pre-existing societal pressures, could be vulnerable to ads directed at them that promoted altering their looks. We considered that some consumers might have understood people portrayed in the ads to be aged under 18. We considered that any under-18 viewers, who perceived the ads as depicting someone of their own age, could be especially vulnerable.
We considered that the references in both ads to “face, style and confidence” and “glow-up”, and the claims "NEVER look unattractive again" in ad (a) and “Dramatically improve your overall look” and “full body transformation” in ad (b), were likely to exploit young people’s potential insecurities around body image, particularly at a time when their bodies were developing and changing, and could prompt them to be dissatisfied with their natural looks.
We also considered that the contrast between the before-and-after footage and photos, including the fact that the people in the “after” images appeared to be happier and more confident, the reference to “confidence”, and the increased scores in both ads, combined with the “Masculinity" category in ad (a) and the “Femininity” category in ad (b) to perpetuate harmful gender stereotypes by suggesting that happiness or wellbeing depended on people’s looks conforming to gender-stereotypical norms.
For those reasons, we concluded that the ads were irresponsible and included harmful gender stereotypes.
On that point, the ads breached CAP Code rules 1.3 (Social responsibility) and 4.9 (Harm and offence).
