Background
This ruling forms part of a wider piece of work on misleadingness and irresponsibility in ads for tanning products. 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. See also related rulings published on 21 January 2026.
Ad description
A paid-for Instagram ad for The Sun Company, a tanning studio, seen on 23 June 2025. The ad included carousel images, including an image of a tanning bed with the claim “Safe, Responsible Tanning” and “Your safety is our top priority, so you can enjoy your tan without worry”.
Issue
The ASA challenged whether the claims that the use of sunbeds was safe were misleading and irresponsible.
Response
The Sun Company (Horsham) Ltd t/a The Sun Company said that they were members of a professional association and therefore undertook to comply with its code of practice, as well as UK and EU sunbed regulations. Their staff were trained on ultraviolet (UV) light exposure, skin types, suitable products, exposure times and safety. They assessed a client’s skin type at point of registration and made recommendations on exposure times depending on that.
They said they had followed wording used by the professional association throughout their website. Due to their membership, and adherence with various regulations, they viewed themselves as a safe and responsible tanning business providing a safe environment for clients. The aim of the ad was to differentiate their business from salons that did not adhere to relevant laws and codes of practice. They pointed to a regulation that governed maximum UV output of sunbeds at 0.3, which was the lamp that they used in their sunbeds. They said that this amount of UV exposure was equivalent to the midday sun in the Mediterranean, without the risk of burning. The UV exposure through their sunbeds was adjustable and controlled and they knew the exact amount of ultraviolet A (UVA) and ultraviolet B (UVB) output of a given session, which was unlike outdoor tanning.
They said that there was outdated information from the World Health Organisation and the NHS, regarding the link between sunbed use and skin cancer, and that there was no link between the responsible use of sunbeds and melanoma. They further stated that studies had been conducted to establish a causal link between the two but had been unable to do so. They provided a 2011 large case-control study on the relationship between sunbed use and melanoma risk in the UK.
Assessment
Upheld
The ad included the claims “Safe, Responsible Tanning” and “Your safety is our top priority, so you can enjoy your tan without worry”, together with an image of a tanning bed. The ASA considered that consumers were likely to understand the claims to mean that obtaining a tan at The Sun Company was safe and did not carry any health risks. We understood that the use of the terms “safe” and “responsible” was intended to signal The Sun Company’s compliance with a professional association’s code of practice, and relevant laws. We considered however that was not clear from the ad.
We reviewed the 2011 study provided by the advertiser, which found no association between sunbed use and cutaneous melanoma (a form of skin cancer). However, it was a case-controlled study, rather than a Randomised Controlled Trial and was based on 855 cases and 483 controls. We understood that it was uncommon for a case-control study to include only half the amount of control subjects to the number of cases. We noted further that the study opened with a reference to the fact that a systematic review of 19 studies reported a 15% increased risk of melanoma associated with the use of sunbeds. Further, there was a disparity in the age and socio-economic status distribution among the cases and controls, which could have impacted the risk estimation for the general population.
We also took into account that recent NHS advice on the use of sunbeds was cautious. The advice warned that the UV rays given out by sunbeds increased the risk of developing skin cancer. Cancer Research UK further advised that using a sunbed was not safe, and that there was no such thing as a safe tanning from UV radiation, irrespective of the source.
Because the ad implied that it was possible to safely obtain a tan, but we understood that was not the case, we concluded that it was misleading and irresponsible.
The ad breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 1.3 (Social responsibility) and 3.1 (Misleading advertising).
Action
The ad must not appear again in the form investigated. We told The Sun Company (Horsham) Ltd t/a The Sun Company to ensure that their ads were socially responsible and did not mislead consumers by suggesting that tanning can be obtained safely.
