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 3 December.
Summary of Council decision:
Two issues were investigated, both of which were Upheld.
Ad description
Two paid-for Google search ads for Woodbury house, an art investment company, seen on 23 May 2025:
a. Contained the title “Free 2025 Art Investment Guide” and the text “Learn Art Investment Secrets – Unlock expert advice with the free 2025 Art Investment Guide […] insights, tops and strategies for smart collectors. High Potential Growth”. The ad contained various links at the bottom, including “Master Art Investment in 2025” and “Invest in Art with Confidence”.
b. Contained the title “Master Art Investment in 2025 Free 2025 Art Investment…” and text that stated “Unlock expert advice with the free 2025 Art Investment Guide […] insights, tops and strategies for smart collectors. High Potential Growth”.
Issue
The ASA challenged whether the ads:
- were misleading because they did not make clear material information about the risks of the investments; and
- breached the Code because they did not make clear the value of investments was variable.
Response
1. and 2. Woodbury House Ltd t/a Woodbury House said they were a private art gallery and specialised in helping collectors acquire original paintings by historically important street and graffiti artists. They said their service was rooted in culture and not finance, and that they sold artworks and not financial products, and did not offer or promote any regulated investment opportunities. They said the Art Investment Guide was intended to provide general information for collectors and enthusiasts.
They acknowledged that some of their clients may personally consider the long-term value of their acquisitions, but that the decision was entirely theirs, and that it was not something they sought to advise on, or influence. They said that they were not financial advisors and didn’t promote projected returns, performance charts, or auction comparisons in any of their advertising or marketing materials. For that reason, they didn’t include any risk warnings.
They also said that they acknowledged that “art investment” was a widely searched phrase online and commonly used within collector circles and as such, previously targeted the keyword “art investment” in Google Ads simply as a marketing tool to reach audiences who already associated art with long-term value. They said the intention had been to offer a free educational guide and provide the opportunity to explore their gallery programme and discuss available artworks, but that it was not positioned or intended as the promotion of a regulated investment opportunity.
They further highlighted the term “High Potential Growth” was not written or authorised by their team, but was generated automatically during the placement of the ad. They said they were unaware that term had appeared, until they received the complaint. They said the ad had since been removed, and they had suspended all Google campaigns linked to the term “art Investment”. They said in future, they would include a visible disclaimer, should their ads reference investment.
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 art 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 Woodbury Houses’ services.
We noted that both ads referenced their 2025 Art Investment Guide, and claimed to offer expert advice. The ads stated, “High Potential Growth”. Ad (a) additionally stated, “Learn Art Investment Secrets” and “Invest in Art with Confidence”. Ad (b) also stated, “Master Art Investment in 2025 “. They therefore were ads for an investment product. However, the Google ads, which were limited by space, contained no information stating that art investment was unregulated. The ads linked through to the Woodbury House Art Collection & Investment Guide landing page, which also did not contain that information.
Because the ads did not make clear that art investment was unregulated, we concluded they were misleading. We noted also that the information did not appear at all, on the linked landing page.
On that point, the ads 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 Financial Conduct Authority (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.
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.
Ads (a) and (b) included no risk warning to make clear that investments could go down as well as up.? We therefore concluded that they breached the Code.
On that point, the ads breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rule 14.4 (Financial products).
Action
The ad must not appear again in the form complained about. We told Woodbury House Ltd t/a Woodbury House to ensure that future marketing made clear that art investment was unregulated. We further told them, to make clear that the value of investments was variable and could go down as well as up.
