Background
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.
Ad description
Two paid-for Facebook ads for Egg Donors UK, seen in October 2025:
a. The first ad included the caption "Apply to become an egg donor today and receive £750 compensation for your donation. Donation clinics are now open in your local area". It also featured an image of a smiling woman next to the text "Compensation for egg donors has increased to £985 for your generous donation" and "Your impact is incredible!". The word “increased” was in bold text, and "£985" was presented in larger text and a different colour.
b. The second ad included the same caption as ad (a). It featured an image of three women smiling as confetti rained down on them. The image included the text "Your impact is incredible!" followed by "Become an egg donor and receive £985 for your generous donation"; "£985" was presented in larger text and a different colour.
Issue
The ASA challenged whether the ads were irresponsible because they trivialised the decision to donate eggs and emphasised the financial compensation.
Response
Manchester Fertility Services Ltd t/a Egg Donors UK said they had removed the ads and would not use them again. They said that the compensation sum was set by the Human Fertilisation & Embryology Authority (HFEA), and believed that the ads met HFEA requirements for terminology and donor framing. They said their intention had been transparency regarding the regulated figure for compensation rather than to encourage donation based on financial gain. They had intended to communicate a positive tone, not to imply celebration of compensation.
Egg Donors UK said the images were selected from their standard brand photo library to communicate positivity and empowerment, rather than to celebrate the compensation. They said that the larger text used for “£985” was intended for readability and clarity in ads likely to be viewed on a mobile device, and that the colour used for “£985” was consistent with their brand palette and guidelines.
They said that the wording, for example “receive £985 for your generous donation”, was based on the standard, regulated compensation for a completed donation cycle. They said that the term “compensation” was required by HFEA guidance, and “donation” was in line with their Code of Practice and the relevant legislation. They said the wording was intended to balance transparency with neutral, factual communication. They also said the word “increased” had been presented in bold text in the ads to reflect a factual update to the regulated amount of compensation, not to encourage donation based on financial gain.
Egg Donors UK recognised, however, the potential for a perception of over-emphasis on the compensation figure in the ads. They also accepted that, although not their intention, the combination of images and reference to compensation could suggest that the celebration portrayed in the ads related to the payment.
Egg Donors UK said they were taking steps to review and update their processes in respect of their future advertising.
Assessment
Upheld
The CAP Code stated that ads must be prepared with a sense of responsibility to consumers and to society.
The ASA understood that £985 was the standard, regulated compensation for a completed donation cycle at the time the ads appeared. We also understood from the HFEA that donor compensation in the UK was intended to remove any unjustifiable barriers to donation and was based on the principle that egg donation was an altruistic act. Under their Code of Practice clinics were advised that advertising aimed at recruiting egg donors could refer to compensation, but not the possibility of financial gain or similar advantage.
Ads (a) and (b) presented the compensation figure of £985 in large, bold text in a bright pink colour, in contrast to the other text in the ads which was more muted and smaller. That compensation figure was in the centre of the ads and positioned between two sets of three blue lines set at various angles that we considered also added emphasis. Because of that, we considered that the ads emphasised the financial compensation for egg donation.
We considered that emphasis on compensation was reinforced in ad (a) by the word “increased”, presented in bold text. We also considered that the image of three women, who were dressed in clothes that were commonly worn for parties or nights out, smiling with confetti raining down on them, in ad (b) suggested they were celebrating and that the image combined with the emphasis on the compensation figure suggested they were specifically celebrating receiving payment. We therefore considered that both ads reduced the decision to donate eggs to a financial one and could have the effect of encouraging women who needed money to undergo invasive medical procedures. We also considered that by creating a light-hearted and celebratory tone, the ads detracted from the significance of the decision to donate eggs, and its physical and emotional implications.
Although we acknowledged that the ads also contained the text “Your impact is incredible!”, which we considered pointed to the altruistic nature of egg donation, that text was less prominent and did not override the emphasis on financial compensation.
For those reasons, we considered the ads trivialised the decision to donate eggs, and concluded they were irresponsible and breached the Code.
The ads breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rule 1.3 (Social responsibility).
Action
The ads must not appear again in the form investigated. We told Manchester Fertility Services Ltd t/a Egg Donors UK to ensure their future ads did not trivialise the decision to donate eggs.
