Why Nike, Superdry and Lacoste ads were banned in the UK?

Major global brands Nike, Superdry and Lacoste have all had specific advertisements banned in the United Kingdomafter the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) ruled that the campaigns contained misleading environmental claims. The decisions mark a high-profile enforcement of UK rules around sustainability marketing – and a warning to brands about the increasing scrutiny of so-called “greenwashing.”

Green Claims Under Scrutiny

The ASA, the UK’s independent advertising regulator, found that online adverts run by the three companies – primarily paid-for Google ads – used terms such as “sustainable”, “sustainable materials” and “sustainable style” without clear explanation or adequate evidence to support those assertions. The regulator said the ads “exaggerated environmental benefits” and risked misleading consumers who were trying to make more environmentally friendly purchasing decisions.

Nike’s challenged advert, which appeared in June this year, promoted tennis polo shirts with language referencing “sustainable materials.” Nike argued the phrasing was general and referenced a broader range of its products and that consumers would interpret it as applying to only some items. The ASA disagreed, saying the claim was absolute and that “a high level of substantiation” was necessary to justify it – something the company did not provide, particularly regarding the full environmental impact of the shirts across their lifecycle.

Superdry’s ad, which invited customers to “unlock a wardrobe that combines style and sustainability”, similarly drew regulatory ire. The British retailer contended that the claim meant individual products might have sustainability attributes, but the ASA found the language ambiguous and likely to convey that all products were environmentally friendly – again without adequate proof.

Lacoste’s banned advert was aimed at its children’s clothing line, describing it as “sustainable clothing.” In response to the ASA’s inquiry, Lacoste acknowledged that terms like “green,” “sustainable,” and “eco-friendly” are “very difficult to substantiate” and removed the ad when the complaint was raised. The company said it would not repeat the claim in future advertising.

Regulatory Standards and Consumer Protection

Under the UK’s advertising code, environmental claims must be clear, unambiguous, and backed by a high level of credible evidence – especially if they suggest a product has environmental benefits or is neutral in impact. Vague or blanket statements that are unsupported by verifiable substantiation can be deemed misleading.

Justine Grimley, operations manager for the ASA’s green project team, highlighted that “people are increasingly looking to make greener choices,” and that broad or unproven statements could wrongly influence their decisions. The rulings reinforce the expectation that advertisers must be transparent and evidence-based when making environmental claims.

Brands Respond

Nike said it has engaged with the ASA and taken “necessary required actions”, reiterating its commitment to providing clear information to help customers make informed choices. Superdry welcomed the ASA’s feedback and withdrew the advert concerned, while Lacoste removed its ad promptly and pledged not to reuse that wording.

Broader Context

These actions are part of a growing trend in the UK and Europe toward clamping down on greenwashing – where companies make sustainability claims that overstate or misrepresent environmental performance. As consumer concern about climate and environmental issues grows, regulators are increasingly enforcing stricter standards for how claims about eco-credentials are portrayed in advertisements.