UK ad watchdog ASA asked to investigate its own ads

In a complaint submitted today, the New Weather Institute and Badvertising have asked the UK advertising regulator, the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) to investigate its own ads for allegedly breaching rules around misleading advertising, which it is charged with enforcing.

Ads seen on billboards and in print in July-August 2025 promote the ASA’s ability to regulate ads “across all media”, with one reading “We regulate ads, wherever you see or hear them”. The watchdog’s ads include the ASA’s logo alongside imagery and slogans of brands including Tesco, Compare The Market and Lloyds Bank. 

Our complaint alleges that the ASA’s “limited” remit means, in fact, that it cannot regulate ads seen and heard by large audiences daily, across various physical and online media. 

Andrew Simms, co-director of the New Weather Institute and Badvertising campaign, said: "The ASA want us to think they will protect the public from all toxic adverts, but they are in fact powerless to prevent multiple ads that misinform from going on show every day in the UK. It matters all the more that the body responsible for maintaining standards in advertising lives up to them itself. If a regulator publishes its own misleading ads you have a problem. We need effective regulation of advertising , and tobacco style controls on ads for the most harmful, polluting products."

According to the ASA’s own information on its remit, it cannot regulate any flyposted ads, ads in shop windows or at point-of-sale, ads on an advertiser’s own vehicles, and those by companies based outside of the UK if they are on platforms also HQ’d outside of the UK. 

It also maintains it does not act “when a brand publishes a communication on their own website or social media page” when this isn’t paid-for content. Our complaint notes that although a large proportion of companies’ social media posts and website content act to build a company’s brand, a recognised form of advertising, this is outside of the ASA’s remit. In practical terms this means that substantial volumes of advertising clearly visible in the UK are beyond the scope of the ASA, and therefore not regulated by them.

Robbie Gillett, co-director at Adfree Cities said, “The ASA is structurally unable to address the cumulative impacts of harmful advertising. It has no power to levy financial penalties and some major polluters continue to publish misleading ads despite previous ASA rulings against them. We urge the Department of Culture, Media and Sport to review the ASA’s limited remit and consult with a broader range of groups about how the marketing industries should be properly regulated.”

The complaint draws on illustrative examples, detailing several previous complaints by Badvertising and campaign group Adfree Cities that were rejected by the ASA on the grounds that the ads were placed in public or online spaces that are not within the watchdog’s remit.

This included a "Fly Greener" advert for Qatar Airways. The ASA said it was unable to investigate as it was on the pitch-side hoardings of a sports event, and thus "material derived from sponsorship”, which is not in the ASA’s remit.

Other complaints concerning ads for oil company BP, and banks Standard Chartered and Barclays were not investigated, with the ASA saying it was either already investigating a firm in the same sector, or undergoing a review of an industry’s advertising.

The complaint submitted by Badvertsing notes that the ads have a “playful tone but one of authority”, and that they give an impression that the ASA “functions as a powerful and effective regulator” - which is evidently misleading.

The wording of one ad, “The ASA makes sure UK ads stick to the rules” is particularly misleading since research by investigative journalism group, Unearthed, found that brands including Virgin Atlantic, Renault and Aqua Pura were repeating misleading green claims despite previous ad bans. 

Badvertising has previously published a report scrutinising the regulator's efficacy, particularly in relation to curbing advertising’s contribution to climate harms through greenwashing and the promotion of heavily polluting goods. Our report analysed the ASA’s remit and a record of complaints made to the regulator, with key findings including that: any advert that is investigated by the ASA can take up to a year, or more, to reach a result (long after those ads have been seen and the campaigns probably ended); many adverts are simply not investigated as they are deemed to be outside the ASA’s remit.

The ASA is a self-funded body, and apparently insufficiently independent from the industry it regulates. Furthermore, as the ASA cannot penalise advertisers legally or financially, advertisers are often undeterred from breaching ASA rulings in future marketing. 

It is as yet unclear whether the ASA, a self-funded regulator, will be able to investigate its own ads.