Background
This Ruling forms part of a wider piece of work on unregulated investments. The ad was 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. See also related rulings published on 10 June 2026.
Summary of Council decision:
Two issues were investigated, both of which were Upheld.
Ad description
A paid-for Meta ad for Oak and Mason seen on 13 March 2026, featured text stating “Oak & Mason specialises in graded Royal Mint coins – certified, secure and historically proven. Download our Gold Investment Guide and discover how these exceptional assets can protect and grow your wealth.” A heading then stated, “How Investors Are Preserving Wealth with Royal Mint Gold Coins.” Text in bullet points underneath stated “Averaging 10% returns p.a. […] Hedge against inflation. Safe, tangible store of value.”Issue
The ASA challenged whether the ad:- was misleading because it did not make clear material information about the risks of the investments; and
- breached the Code because it did not make clear the value of investments was variable or that past performance, examples of which should not be unrepresentative, did not necessarily give a guide for the future.
Response
1. & 2. Sourced Consultancy Ltd t/a Oak and Mason said that they used an external ad agency to create the ad and that it had not gone through their internal compliance review before publication. They said that prior to being notified of the ASA’s investigation, they had identified that the ad had been published without the required risk warnings, including that the value of investments could go down as well as up and that past performance did not necessarily provide a guide for the future, and paused it immediately.They said the ad was a lead form ad, allowing consumers to submit contact information in the ad, and did not link to an external landing page.
They said they had taken steps to improve future compliance with the Code.
Assessment
1. Upheld
The CAP Code required that material information should not be omitted and should be presented clearly.
The ASA understood that the physical gold investment market was not regulated within the UK, nor was it subject to the protections afforded by the Financial Services Compensation Scheme or the Financial Ombudsman Service. We considered that was material information that consumers required in order to make informed decisions about Oak and Mason’s services.
The ad stated “Gold Investment Guide”, “How Investors Are Preserving Wealth with Royal Mint Gold Coins” and included claims such as “Averaging 10% returns p.a.”, “Hedge against inflation” and “Safe, tangible store of value”. We considered that those claims presented the purchase of gold as an investment opportunity we therefore considered the ad to be for an investment product.
However, the Meta ad, which was limited by space, and did not link to a landing page with prominent qualification, contained no information stating that physical gold investments were unregulated.
Because the ad did not make clear that physical gold investments were unregulated, we concluded that it was misleading.
On that point, the ad breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1 and 3.3 (Misleading advertising).
2. Upheld
Section 14 of the CAP Code, which reflected rules prescribed by the FCA on promotional material for regulated investments, required that financial marketing communications not regulated by the FCA should make clear that the value of investments was variable and, unless guaranteed, could go down as well as up. In addition, it required that marketing communications for investments should make clear that past performance or experience did not necessarily give a guide for the future. If they were used in marketing communications, examples of past performance or experience should not be unrepresentative.
Given the greater potential for significant financial harm resulting from financial marketing communications, those rules were additional to and more prescriptive than the rules on misleading advertising. That meant that relevant risk warnings prescribed by section 14 of the CAP Code needed to be in the initial ad and not later in the consumer journey, for instance on a landing page, or in the terms and conditions.
We also noted that FCA guidance for regulated investments in social media stated that firms should ensure that where possible, information that was required to be prominent be displayed without needing to click through, or any other optional action, to view it.
The ad included no risk warning to make clear that the value of investments could go down as well as up.
In addition, the ad stated “averaging 10% returns p.a.”. Therefore, the ad referred to the previous performance of the product, and we considered the implication from the ad was that it was likely to perform in the same way in the future. We noted, however, that the ad contained no information to explain that past performance was not a guide for the future. In addition, we had seen no evidence to demonstrate that the claim “averaging 10% returns p.a.” reflected a representative figure.
The ad did not include: any risk warning to make clear that investments could go down as well as up; that past performance did not necessarily give a guide for the future; and referenced an example of past performance that had not been shown to be representative. We therefore concluded that the ad breached the Code.
On that point, the ad breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rule 14.4 (Financial products).
Action
The ad must not appear again in the form complained about. We told Sourced Consultancy Ltd t/a Oak and Mason to ensure that future marketing made clear that physical gold investment was unregulated. We told them to make clear that the value of investments was variable and could go down as well as up and that examples of past performance or experience were not necessarily a guide to the future. Finally, we told them to ensure that ads that referenced examples of past performance were representative.
