Clothing, shoes and jewellery

Helpful information on the advertising rules for products or services that relate to any type of wearable garment or accessory, and the fashion industry in general.

Ads for clothing, shoes and jewellery often come under fire for promoting unhealthy body images and causing body confidence issues by showing unrealistic body types. While this is a wider societal debate and provides challenges that regulation doesn’t hold all the answers to, we do our best to ensure ads are responsible and have banned ads that don’t encourage positive body image.

The advertising rules state that ads should be prepared with a degree of social responsibility and in fashion ads, this can mean making sure models don’t appear unhealthily thin. It’s also important in the fashion industry to make sure children are protected and we have strict rules on protecting children from sexualised images and being the object of sexualisation themselves.

Images that feature suggestive or sexualised imagery such as children in heavy make-up or provocative poses are likely to fall foul of our rules. Advertisers should be aware these rules apply to models that look under the age of 16 even if they are in fact older.

Other symbols of youth, such as school uniforms, are also almost certainly unacceptable if used in a sexual context.

Another problem area for ads relating to clothing, shoes and jewellery is hidden charges such as delivery or costs for returning goods. Advertisers, especially those whose sales are largely or exclusively via the Internet, often offer goods at prices that exclude delivery charges. This is only acceptable under the advertising rules if the customer can collect the product themselves, say from a warehouse or retail outlet.

Advertisers should also avoid using definitive claims such as "FREE DELIVERY WHEN SPENDING OVER £200" and "FREE DELIVERY ON ALL ORDERS" if additional delivery charges apply to some postcodes.

+ Read more - Show less

Latest rulings

Under Armour UK Ltd
- Upheld
- Internet (on own site)
- 19 August 2020
A website ad for Under Armour misleadingly stated that a T-shirt could improve the wearer’s strength and endurance.
Lemongrassrice Ltd
- Upheld
- Social media (paid ad)
- 24 June 2020
A paid-for Facebook post by an online retailer made misleading claims that its product, a bra, could reduce the risk of breast cancer.
Boohoo.com UK Ltd
- Upheld
- Email, Internet (social networking)
- 06 May 2020
Discount claims in an email and website misleadingly implied all products would be discounted and a countdown clock on the website misleadingly implied the offers were time-limited.
Sorelle UK Brand Ltd
- Upheld
- Internet (on own site), Website (own site)
- 29 April 2020
Product listings on a website for faux fur jackets were misleading because the advertiser was unable to demonstrate that their products did not contain real animal fur.

View all rulings

Clothing, shoes and jewellery

Helpful information on the advertising rules for products or services that relate to any type of wearable garment or accessory, and the fashion industry in general.

Latest news

Collect Clothes, Not Complaints: Charity collection bags

Sexualised Imagery in fashion ads

Picture perfect? Advertising and body image

Don’t miss out on this ‘Daily Deal’ Insight!

Thinking outside the (subscription) box

Sexualisation of children: perfume and underwear ads

Latest rulings

Under Armour UK Ltd

Lemongrassrice Ltd

Boohoo.com UK Ltd

Sorelle UK Brand Ltd

Help getting it right

Popular advice

Social Responsibility: Body Image

Amber Jewellery

Enforcement Notice: Misleading 'Faux Fur' claims in clothes and accessories

Relevant codes