The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) has banned advertisements from sports giant Nike and broadcaster Sky for employing tactics that could mislead consumers into spending more than they intended. The ASA is intensifying its scrutiny of online advertisements, focusing on practices that distort price transparency and mislead customers.
Nike’s social media advertisement showcased trainers priced at £26, a price that was only applicable to children’s sizes. When consumers clicked on the ad, they discovered that this price applied exclusively to sizes UK3 to UK6, which led to widespread confusion. The ad included emojis like an exploding head and a black heart to emphasize what was portrayed as a significant deal. However, the ASA noted that the actual price represented a lesser bargain since children’s shoes are exempt from VAT.
In response to the ASA’s ruling, Nike stated that the ad was created by The Sole Supplier, an online footwear marketplace, without direct oversight from the company. However, Nike maintained that consumers would reasonably expect some limitation on availability given the advertised price.
Sky’s advertisement for the Now TV streaming service faced similar scrutiny. The ASA criticized the presentation of subscription options, highlighting that customers who signed up for a seven-day free trial were automatically enrolled in additional paid services, including Cinema and Boost, unless they actively canceled. Although the terms of the free trial were mentioned, the ASA argued that the details were displayed in smaller font and less prominent colors, making them easy to overlook.
Sky defended its ad, asserting that the presentation was clear and legible, and argued that the concept of a seven-day free trial is widely understood, thus not misleading.
The ASA’s actions come amid growing concern over “dark patterns”—strategies that encourage consumers to click on ads while obscuring key information until later in the purchasing process. Tactics like “drip pricing,” where additional fees are introduced gradually, can leave customers feeling manipulated and, in some cases, financially harmed.
Additionally, the ASA has banned an advertisement from food replacement company Huel, marking the third ad to face sanctions in recent months. The authority concluded that Huel’s claims regarding health benefits and cost savings were unsubstantiated.
The crackdown on misleading advertising practices aims to enhance consumer protection and ensure transparency in marketing, particularly in the online space. The ASA’s rulings serve as a reminder to companies about the importance of clear and honest advertising.
