Background
This Ruling forms part of a wider piece of work on misleading gameplay in ads for mobile games, identified for investigation following intelligence gathered by the ASA.
See also related rulings published on 4 November 2026.
Ad description
Two paid-for Facebook ads for Pixel Flow!, a mobile game, seen on 28 April.
a. The first Facebook ad featured a video of a short puzzle. Different shaped path elements were rotated by a hand icon. When these lined up, a group of cartoon pigs progressed along the path, until they made it across a river and flowed down a pipe.
The video cut to a video of a game, in which cartoon pigs were sent along a path around a pattern of different coloured blocks. The pig shot at blocks of the same colour as it.
b. The second Facebook ad featured a video of several cartoon pigs lined up on shelves. The pigs spat out different coloured cubes.
The video cut to a video of a game similar to the one at the end of ad (a).
Issue
The ASA challenged whether ads (a) and (b) misleadingly gave the impression that they showed, or were representative of, gameplay in Pixel Flow!.
Response
Scopely Inc said that Loom Games developed and published Pixel Flow!, and the ads were created using “Piggy” character assets. They said the game had a single gameplay mechanic with players launching Piggy characters onto a conveyor belt in the correct order and with the right timing to clear pixel art. There were no alternative modes within the game itself.
They said both ads featured a short, stylised introduction designed to introduce the game’s characters. Those introductions were not intended to be viewed as part of the game and took up no more than a third of the ad. After the introduction, both ads featured real gameplay.
Scopely Inc provided screenshots of gameplay from Pixel Flow!.
Assessment
Upheld in relation to ad (a) only
Ad (a) featured a video of a puzzle, in which a hand icon appeared to interact with pipes. When clicked, the pipes turned to connect a path across a river. Once the path was fully connected, a line of pig characters went down a pipe, and the video cut to a conveyor belt surrounding pixel art. The pigs moved around the conveyor belt, shooting matching colour blocks. We considered consumers were likely to understand the path puzzle and the pixel art puzzle as two elements of the gameplay experience being advertised. We considered the prominence of the path puzzle, which featured in the thumbnail and was placed at the beginning of the ad, and the presentation of the hand icon, which appeared to interact with the paths, were likely to reinforce the impression that the path puzzle was part of the gameplay experience.
We noted that the Pixel Flow! game only featured the second element portrayed in the ad, the pixel art puzzle. We understood this was the only gameplay loop of the game. Because consumers were likely to understand that intro scene depicted gameplay in Pixel Flow!, and because the playing experience differed materially from the gameplay depicted, we concluded that ad (a) was misleading.
Ad (b) featured an intro-scene in which rows of pig toys were standing on shelves. The pigs then spat out numerous colourful blocks. The video cut to footage of the pixel art puzzle. The opening sequence was only a small proportion of the ad and did not include a hand cursor, a heads-up display, or other features associated with gameplay. The second part of the ad, which featured the pixel art puzzle, featured score elements, and a hand icon which appeared to interact with the pigs. We considered that consumers were likely to understand the opening sequence as thematic or cinematic material, rather than as representative of gameplay, whereas they would understand the second part of the video as part of the gameplay experience being advertised.
We understood the second part of the video, which featured the pixel art puzzle, was representative of gameplay in Pixel Flow!.
Because the intro-scene was presented in such a way that it was unlikely consumers would understand it to be representative of gameplay in Pixel Flow!, and the pixel-art puzzle shown was representative of gameplay in Pixel Flow, we concluded that ad (b) was not misleading.
Ad (a) breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1 (Misleading advertising) and 3.7 (Substantiation). We investigated ad (b) under those rules, but did not find it in breach.
Action
Ad (a) must not appear again in its current form. We told Scopely Inc to ensure that their ads did not misleadingly give the impression that they showed, or were representative of, gameplay in Pixel Flow! when that was not the case.
