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

Alliance Winds Ltd t/a linendaily
- Upheld
- Social media (paid ad)
- 25 February 2026
A paid-for Meta ad and a website listing for an online clothing company misleadingly claimed they were established and owned by armed forces veterans and that they donated a share of profits to PTSD support organisations.
Adamans Group Ltd
- Upheld
- Website (own site)
- 07 January 2026
A website page for a jeweller misleadingly gave the impression that products were included in a promotional offer and failed to make clear which products were included in the offer.
Marble Muse
- Upheld
- Website (own site)
- 24 September 2025
A website for a clothing company misleadingly implied that they were UK based and omitted the identity and geographical address of the company.
Alibaba.com Singapore E-commerce Private Ltd t/a AliExpress
- Upheld
- Social media (paid ad)
- 17 September 2025
A paid-for Facebook ad for the AliExpress shopping app was misleading by showing a product as part of a promotion when it was not actually available at the price stated.

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

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

Love is in the Air

Eye-catching Effects and Epilepsy

Bright Future in (January) Sales

VAT’s the Way to Do It: Get your pricing ads right

The great outdoors: keeping posters in line with the Code - come rain or shine

Latest rulings

Alliance Winds Ltd t/a linendaily

Adamans Group Ltd

Marble Muse

Alibaba.com Singapore E-commerce Private Ltd t/a AliExpress

Help getting it right

Popular advice

Social responsibility: Body image

Advice for Online Marketplace Sellers

Amber Jewellery

Relevant codes