Background
Summary of Council decision:
Two issues were investigated, both of which were Not upheld.
Ad description
A pop-up, banner ad for The Guardian on its own website, www.theguardian.com, seen on 16 March 2025, featured a headline “For facts’ sake” in large text and smaller text underneath explaining the importance of fact-checked journalism. To create the word “facts”, “act” was overlaid on other text which appeared to have the same number of letters and ended in a “k”, which was partially obscured. That text was in black, as were the words “For” and “sake”. The overlaid text “act” was in white on a red background.
Issue
The complainant challenged whether:
- the ad was offensive because the phrase “For facts’ sake” and the partially obscured “k” alluded to an expletive; and
- the ad was inappropriate for display on a website where it could be seen by children.
Response
1. & 2. Guardian News and Media Ltd said that they had used the phrase “For Facts’ Sake” in their marketing since 5 May 2021 to reflect their focus on fact-based, trusted journalism. They said it emphasised this in a playful and intelligent way, without using an actual expletive, although it alluded to one. It was also used by other broadcasters and publishers.
They said that the phrase “For fuck’s sake” was commonly used to express frustration and annoyance, a potential reaction to misinformation. It was not associated with aggression; directed at another person or group; or derogatory or demeaning to others.
Guardian News and Media Ltd said the ad was presented only to people who had chosen to visit their website, where it had appeared since 5 February 2025. Impressions of it exceeded 30 million and they had only been contacted directly with one negative response.
The website did not target those under 18 years of age and they took the view that it was not likely to be accessed by children. They cited publicly available, third-party data collected in March 2025 on the breakdown of UK visitors to the website by age to suggest that it was not an untargeted medium: 96.7% were 18+ and 3.3% were aged 15–17. While that research did not include participants under the age of 15, they considered it likely that the proportion of under 15s would be smaller than the 15–17 category.
Guardian News and Media Ltd added that little of the website’s content was likely to interest children. Its focus was news and opinions on current affairs, sport, business and lifestyle, as well as challenging human interest topics. Content which might appeal to adults with children, such as a children’s quiz, was in the Lifestyle section, where the ad did not appear.
They explained that, like readers of their newspaper, visitors to the website would be accustomed to expletives: articles frequently included them. Their editorial policy was not to use asterisks or to obscure expletives in other ways. Their style guide explained that they were more liberal than other newspapers, using language they considered most competitors would not. “Fuck” was used 2,815 times from 28 April 2021 to 28 April 2025 in editorial content and thus visible across their website.
While they considered the ad unlikely to be seen by children, Guardian News and Media Ltd accepted that a child could access the website and it may have been seen by a small number of children. They said, however, that younger children would be unlikely to understand the wordplay, and older children, such as teenagers, who could understand it would likely already be used to encountering expletives and sufficiently resilient so as not to be harmed by the ad.
Assessment
1. & 2. Not upheld
The CAP Code stated that ads must not contain anything that was likely to cause serious or widespread offence, and to ensure advertising was prepared with a sense of responsibility to consumers and to society.
The ASA acknowledged that the ad did not explicitly use the word “fuck’s” as it was partially obscured by “facts’”. However, we considered that many people would understand “fuck’s” was implied. We also considered that many people would understand this as a play on words to position the Guardian’s journalism as based on fact.
We considered “fuck” a word so likely to offend that it should not generally be used or alluded to in advertising. However, we accepted that Guardian News and Media Ltd’s editorial policy meant that it was used relatively frequently in their newspaper and website, shaping the context in which the ad was seen and influencing expectations among its readership. We therefore considered that an obscured version of the word “fuck” reflected language used elsewhere in their website and newspaper.
We noted from the data provided, that the vast majority of readers of the Guardian were adults and that, while free, the website had to be actively sought out. While the Guardian cited publicly available, third-party data to show 96.7% of their audience was over 18, the research did not include those aged under 15, thereby omitting younger children. However, we understood it reasonable, because of the small percentage of their audience aged 15 to 17 and the nature of the website’s general content, to assume that younger children would constitute a very small percentage. We therefore considered that children were unlikely to see the ad.
We therefore concluded the ad was unlikely to cause serious or widespread offence and had not been irresponsibly targeted.
We investigated the ad under CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 1.3 (Responsible advertising) and 4.1 (Harm and offence), but did not find it in breach.
Action
No further action necessary.
