In recent rulings we have seen the ASA: (i) issue multiple rulings on the advertising of unregulated investments and (ii) reinforce its stance on gender stereotyping and sexual imagery in ads.

Cheers to that! The ASA's crackdown on advertising unregulated investments 

What was complained about? The ASA has recently been taking steps to tackle the advertising of unregulated investments with several rulings on the promotion of the investment into fine wines.  The issues investigated fell into three categories: (i) the ads failed to illustrate the risks of the investments investment, (ii) they did not make clear that past performance didn't necessarily give a guide for the future and/or (iii) the claims on expected returns or growth were potentially misleading and couldn't be substantiated. 

What was the ruling? Upheld.  On issues (i) and (ii), the CAP Code requires that marketing communications for investments must make clear that the value of investments is variable and, unless guaranteed, can go down as well as up. It also states that material information should not be omitted and should be presented clearly. The ASA considered the fact that wine investment is not currently regulated in the UK, nor protected by national regulatory bodies, to be material information; therefore, and because the ad(s) did not make clear that wine investment was unregulated and that investments could go down as well as up, they were held to be misleading.
On issue (iii) the ASA considered that, before distributing or submitting a marketing communication for publication, marketers must hold objective documentary evidence to substantiate their claims. Despite some advertisers providing evidence that their investments had increased overall, one advertiser relied on unverified data from a third party source which was considered insufficient to substantiate their claims. 

What are the ramifications? This ruling reminds businesses that advertisements for unregulated financial products or services must be extremely clear. They need to include express and comprehensive disclaimers which highlight all potential risks and ensure consumers fully understand that they not are subject to protection or regulation from the FCA. The ASA will continue to monitor the advertising of unregulated investments (other examples of which include cryptocurrencies and crowdfunding sites) as part of it's wider initiative and will likely find any ambiguity to be misleading and a breach of the CAP Code. 

No room for "grass" jokes here, says the ASA

What was complained about? A supplier of artificial grass, Great Grass, was criticised for a poster that the complainant felt objectified and sexualised women. The ad included an image of a woman wearing flesh-coloured underwear and holding a plant near her crotch area in one hand, and scissors in the other. Text on the ad stated "No trimming needed! [wink emoji]". 

What was the ruling? Upheld. Despite Great Grass's insistence that the majority of viewers had not been offended by the ad (the ad had allegedly received 47 positive comments), the ASA ultimately found the poster to be in breach of the CAP code. The individual's physique and nude underwear, coupled with the ad's use of "trimming" language and imagery, was held to be sexually suggestive and, in the ASA's view, "had the effect of demeaning and objectifying women". On that basis, the ad was likely to cause "serious and widespread offence" and reinforce harmful gender stereotypes.

What are the ramifications? This ruling is the second instance of the ASA asking Green Grass to ensure that its ads are socially responsible, (for this and other examples of ASA rulings on sexualised advertising see: Sexual imagery in advertising: where do you draw the line?, Alex Lowe, Hannah Potter, John Wilks). In both cases, the ads were on posters: advertisers should therefore be acutely aware of their obligations under the CAP code where an ad appears on an untargeted medium that is publicly accessible. How much the risqué imagery relates to the actual content of the ad will also be considered by the ASA, particularly where the product is not inherently sexual in nature. Finally, the ASA notably questioned the media owner as well as the advertiser prior to finalising its ruling on Green Grass - media owners should be prepared to answer to the ASA even if the ad was published by an unaffiliated company.