Ad description
Two paid-for Meta ads for Novita Diamonds, a jewellery retailer, seen on 5 January 2026:
a. The first ad included an image of a diamond ring with text that stated, “NOVITA DIAMONDS READY-TO-SHIP ENGAGEMENT RINGS 1-10 DAYS*”. Small text in the image stated “*The shipping time may vary depending on whether the ring needs resizing or if it is being shipped from one of our showrooms in another city.”
The ad included the caption “Find your dream engagement ring in our Ready to Ship collection — crafted to impress, delivered in just 1–10 days. When the moment matters, we make it happen fast.” Text underneath the image stated, “Your Perfect Ring Delivered Fast – Order Now” and included a button labelled “Learn more”.
b. The second ad included a video which featured clips of diamond rings being shown from different angles. It included on-screen text that stated, “YOUR PERFECT RING READY IN DAYS”, “TIMELESS DESIGNS PREMIUM DIAMONDS” and “SHOP OUR READY-TO-SHIP COLLECTION TODAY NOVITA DIAMONDS”.
The ad included the caption “[diamond ring emoji] Need a ring in a hurry? Explore our exclusive and extensive Ready to Ship collection to find your dream engagement ring, delivered in just 1–12 days. Because your special moment can’t wait”. Text underneath the video stated, “Your Perfect Ring, Delivered in 1-12 Days” and included a button labelled “Learn more”.
Issue
The Natural Diamond Council and the London Diamond Bourse, who understood the products were synthetic diamonds, challenged whether the ads misleadingly implied they were natural diamonds.
Response
Novita Diamonds Ltd said the ads did not state or imply the diamonds were mined, natural, rare, or extracted from the earth. They contained no references to geology, extraction, heritage, rarity, investment value or any other feature associated with mined provenance, nor did they compare the products with mined diamonds. The emphasis was on “ready-to-ship”, immediately available engagement rings with short delivery timelines, which cut against any implication of mined provenance.
They said laboratory-grown diamonds met the scientific and gemmological definition of “diamond” because they shared the same chemical composition, crystal structure, and physical and optical properties as mined diamonds, and that the method of formation did not change the material. They also said there was no UK statutory, regulatory or standards-based definition limiting “diamond” to stones of mined or geological origin. They stated that neither the Competition and Markets Authority nor the Office for Product Safety and Standards treated the unqualified use of “diamond” as inherently implying mined provenance, and that any claim about origin would need to be made expressly or arise clearly from the overall presentation.
The assumption that “diamond”, without qualification, automatically meant mined diamond was not supported by contemporary standards, gemmological authorities, or established industry usage. The unqualified use of “diamonds” in paid social media ads was widespread among UK lab-grown diamond retailers and informed how consumers were likely to interpret the term. The absence of enforcement action against similar ads supported their view that it was not generally considered misleading where there were no additional cues suggesting mined origin.
Their brand identity was exclusively lab-grown diamonds and there was nothing in the brand name, creative execution, or messaging that would reasonably lead consumers to infer the diamonds were mined. They added that further information was made immediately available to consumers engaging with the ads, and there was no attempt to obscure, delay or withhold information about origin.
They also said consumer understanding of laboratory-grown diamonds had developed significantly in recent years, and they did not believe the average consumer automatically equated “diamond”, when used without qualification, with mined origin. They referred to a YouGov survey published in 2025 which indicated that laboratory-grown diamonds had become a more familiar and mainstream consumer category. They said that 29% of British adults said they were likely to purchase a lab-grown diamond in future, rising to 49% amongst 18–24-year olds and 46% among 25–34-year olds.
While they did not believe the ads were misleading, they said they had amended the ads to add “lab” before “diamonds” to improve clarity and demonstrate cooperation.
Assessment
Upheld
The ads included images of rings with clear gemstones and references to diamonds, including in the brand name “Novita Diamonds”. The ASA considered that consumers would understand the word “diamond” in isolation to mean a naturally occurring mineral consisting of crystallised carbon. We considered that while some consumers may have been aware that synthetic diamonds could be manufactured or created in a laboratory, many would not. We also understood that although synthetic diamonds had the same chemical and physical properties as natural, mined diamonds, there were differences in their future value. We also considered that whether a diamond was natural or synthetic would be a key consideration for many consumers and was therefore material information. We therefore considered that ads for synthetic diamonds needed to make clear the nature of the product in order to avoid misleading consumers.
We considered the YouGov survey referred to by Novita Diamonds, which found that 29% out of the 2,079 adults surveyed were likely to purchase a lab-grown diamond in future. This proportion was higher among younger demographics and decreased with age. Whilst we considered that this provided some insight into purchase intent of lab-grown diamonds, it did not provide strong evidence of how the average consumer would interpret the individual ads or references to “diamond” without qualification. Furthermore, there was no information about how respondents were selected or the extent to which they were already aware of lab-grown diamonds, which may have influenced the results.
The National Association of Jewellers’ “Diamond Terminology Guideline”, which had the status of ‘Assured Advice’ from Trading Standards, stated that when referring to synthetic diamonds, a qualification such as “synthetic”, “laboratory-grown” or “laboratory-created” should be used. We took note of that advice, although it was not binding on the ASA. We assessed how we considered the average consumer was likely to respond to the ads.
Neither of the ads included an explicit qualification that Novita Diamonds were “synthetic”, “laboratory-created” or similar, nor was there anything within their content that made clear they were synthetic. We therefore considered that consumers would not be aware from the ads that the diamonds were synthetic diamonds.
We understood that if the ads were clicked, consumers were directed to the Novita Diamonds website where there was information that the diamonds were synthetic. However, we considered that it was material information that should have been included upfront. We further considered the ads were neither limited by time nor space to such an extent that the information could not be provided.
Therefore, because the ads did not make clear that Novita Diamonds were synthetic, we concluded that they were misleading.
The ads breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1, 3.3 (Misleading advertising) and 3.9 (Qualification).
Action
The ads must not appear again in the form complained of. We told Novita Diamonds Ltd not to misleadingly use the term “diamond” to describe their synthetic diamonds in isolation without a clear and prominent qualifier, such as “synthetic” or wording of the same meaning.
