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

Fortore Ltd
- Upheld
- Social media (paid ad)
- 10 June 2026
A paid-for Facebook ad for an investment competition website failed to make clear that gold and precious metal investment was unregulated and that the value of investments was variable.
Montford Group Ltd t/a Brittania Bullion
- Upheld
- Social media (paid ad)
- 10 June 2026
A paid-for LinkedIn ad for a gold investment company failed to make clear that physical gold investment was unregulated and that the value of investments was variable.
Rosland Capital Ltd
- Upheld
- Social media (paid ad)
- 10 June 2026
A paid-for Facebook ad for a gold and precious metal specialist failed to make clear that gold and precious metal investment was unregulated and that the value of investments was variable.
Sourced Consultancy Ltd t/a Oak & Mason
- Upheld
- Social media (paid ad)
- 10 June 2026
A paid-for Meta ad for a gold investment company failed to make clear that physical gold investment was unregulated and that the value of investments was variable. The ad also broke the rules by referencing an example of past performance that was unrepresentative.

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

Recent environmental rulings retrospective

Taking the legwork out of compliance

Three key tips for green claims this Earth Day

ADHD References in Ads

International Women’s Day 2026: Progress, portrayal and the CAP Code

Love is in the Air

Latest rulings

Fortore Ltd

Montford Group Ltd t/a Brittania Bullion

Rosland Capital Ltd

Sourced Consultancy Ltd t/a Oak & Mason

Help getting it right

Popular advice

Social responsibility: Body image

Amber Jewellery

Advice for Online Marketplace Sellers

Relevant codes