Ad description

Three product listings seen on in February 2021, stated “mocha fluffy faux fur sliders”, “black faux fur shoulder bag” and “black faux fur trim denim jacket” alongside images of models wearing the products.


The ASA challenged whether the claim “faux fur” in the product listings was misleading and could be substantiated.

Response Ltd acknowledged the complaint, but did not provide a substantive response to the ASA’s enquiries.


The ASA was concerned by Ltd’s (Just Your Outfit) lack of substantive 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 substantive response to our enquiries and told them to do so in future.


The ASA initially received a complaint from Humane Society International (HSI) about a “faux fur” claim made on the Just Your Outfit website regarding their beanie hat. We understood that HSI had bought a “grey diamante faux fur beanie hat" from Just Your Outfit and found that the hat’s label stated that it contained marmot fur. We also understood that HSI had tested the product internally and believed that it contained raccoon dog fur. We therefore contacted Just Your Outfit to challenge the “faux fur” claim that appeared in their listing for the beanie hat as well as the three listings, which we randomly selected. As part of that work we asked them to check the labels for those products and to send images of those labels, and explain what steps they had taken to test the products to ensure that they did not contain animal fur. In response to that contact from us, Just Your Outfit said that they had removed the listing for the beanie hat because it contained marmot fur, and they provided a label for the “faux fur denim jacket” listing which stated that it was made out of polyester. However, they did not provide any further explanation or the full supporting evidence we had requested. We therefore referred the matter for a formal ASA investigation and ruling.

We asked Just Your Outfit to provide test reports of the products in the three listings to demonstrate what material they contained, as well as scans of the labels attached to the other two listings. However, they did not provide any supporting evidence to show that the three products contained exclusively faux fur. Because we had asked Just Your Outfit to provide evidence to substantiate their faux fur claims, and they did not provide it, we concluded that the ad was misleading and breached the Code.

The ad breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules  3.1 3.1 Marketing communications must not materially mislead or be likely to do so.  (Misleading advertising) and  3.7 3.7 Before distributing or submitting a marketing communication for publication, marketers must hold documentary evidence to prove claims that consumers are likely to regard as objective and that are capable of objective substantiation. The ASA may regard claims as misleading in the absence of adequate substantiation.  (Substantiation).


The product listings must not appear again in their current form. We told Ltd not to make “faux fur” claims in their advertising if they did not hold evidence to demonstrate that their products contained exclusively faux fur with no real animal fur. We referred the matter to the CAP Compliance team.

CAP Code (Edition 12)

3.1     3.7    

More on