Design Delight Studio

Nike, Lacoste, and Superdry Ads Banned Over Misleading Sustainability Claims

The ASA banned ads from Nike, Lacoste, and Superdry. They made broad claims. These claims misled consumers about environmental benefits.

Nike’s “Sustainable Materials” Claim

• Nike ran an ad for tennis polo shirts.
  The headline read: “Serve An Ace With Nike…Sustainable Materials.”
  The ad linked to products with at least 75% recycled fibers.

• Nike showed product labels.
  They pointed to recycled content on each page.

• The ASA ruled the headline gave a general claim.
  Consumers would think the whole product was sustainable.
  Nike did not prove lower impact for manufacturing, distribution, or end-of-life.

• The ad was banned for overstating sustainability.

Lacoste’s “Sustainable Clothing for Kids” Ad

• Lacoste promoted a kidswear line by calling it “Sustainable Clothing for Kids.”
  Garments used GOTS-certified cotton, recycled fibers, and responsibly sourced wool.

• Lacoste provided lifecycle data.
  The data showed a 19% improvement in raw materials.
  It also showed a 17% reduction in manufacturing impact for 78% of the line.

• The ASA ruled that the claim was unqualified.
  Consumers might assume the whole range was sustainable.
  The data did not prove savings for every stage.

• The ad was removed.
  Lacoste promised more specific claims next time.

Superdry’s “Wardrobe That Combines Style and Sustainability” Promise

• Superdry ran an ad for a womenswear collection.
  The ad said the collection combines “style and sustainability.”
  Some items had organic or recycled materials; others did not.

• Superdry argued the claim showed a company goal.
  They noted that some items met sustainability standards.

• The ASA judged that the claim needed full proof.
  They saw a mix of sustainable and non-sustainable items.
  Consumers could be misled about the whole collection.

• The ad was banned and withdrawn.

Key Takeaways

• ASA requires clear, specific claims.
  Evidence must cover the full product lifecycle—from materials to disposal.

• General or broad claims can mislead consumers.
  Such claims harm trust and break rules.

• The ruling means more scrutiny for green marketing.
  Brands must communicate sustainability with clarity and evidence.

This decision reinforces that brands must prove any sustainability claim they make. Clear evidence and specific language help consumers trust what they see.

Design Delight Studio curates high-impact, authoritative insights into sustainable and organic product trends, helping conscious consumers and innovative brands stay ahead in a fast-evolving green economy.