UK Advertising Regulator Bans Ads from Superdry, Nike, and Lacoste Over Unsubstantiated Green Claims

The UK's Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) has moved to prohibit promotional materials from major fashion retailers, specifically naming Superdry, Nike, and Lacoste. The core reason for these bans stems from a lack of sufficient evidence to back up the use of broad environmental terms like 'sustainable' or 'sustainability' in their advertising copy. This decisive action is part of a wider, targeted crackdown by the regulator on environmental claims within the apparel retail sector. Interestingly, the initial scrutiny of these advertisements was triggered by artificial intelligence systems designed to flag potentially misleading marketing campaigns.

Lacoste faced challenges regarding an advertisement that promoted 'Sustainable [...] clothing' within its children's collection. The brand offered evidence, verified by the Science Based Targets initiative, detailing reductions in its carbon footprint. Furthermore, Lacoste confirmed that approximately 78% of its online children's apparel utilized certified fabrics. Despite presenting this data, Lacoste acknowledged the inherent difficulty in definitively proving abstract concepts like 'sustainability.' Consequently, the company swiftly withdrew the contested advertisement upon receiving notification from the ASA that it failed to meet current advertising standards.

Nike's promotional message, which centered on 'Sustainable Materials' used in its tennis polo shirts, was deemed overly absolute by the regulator. The American sportswear giant argued that the claim referred specifically to products containing a minimum of 50% recycled content, citing reductions in CO2 equivalents calculated using the Higg MSI tool. However, the ASA ruled that the statement was presented as a sweeping declaration requiring a high bar of supporting proof, which Nike could not furnish. The authority pointed out a critical gap: the absence of evidence confirming that the shirts caused no environmental harm across their entire lifecycle.

Similarly, Superdry’s assertion of offering 'Sustainable Style' was ultimately judged to be misleading. The regulator concluded that unqualified environmental terminology implies a complete absence of negative ecological impact throughout a product’s lifespan—a standard Superdry could not substantiate for its entire product range. While Superdry contended that consumers would interpret the advertisement as indicating that the collection's products were either fashionable, environmentally conscious, or both, the ASA maintained that the term 'sustainable' used without specific caveats was ambiguous and demanded a much higher level of verifiable proof.

As a direct consequence of these findings, all three companies have been formally instructed to ensure that any future absolute environmental claims are accompanied by a high degree of verifiability and clear delineation of their scope. These recent rulings form a key component of the British oversight body’s ongoing campaign to combat greenwashing practices that may mislead consumers actively seeking more environmentally sound purchasing options. This proactive stance follows previous enforcement actions by the ASA, which have resulted in bans against companies like Innocent, Wizz Air, Lloyds, and Total Energies for exaggerating their environmental benefits.