According to the ASA, all three brands published paid Google ads that included phrases like “sustainable clothing” or “sustainable materials,” but failed to provide adequate evidence to back up these environmental claims.
The advertising watchdog says it is part of a wider crackdown on environmental claims in the retail fashion sector. The ads were identified for investigation following intelligence gathering by its Active Ad Monitoring system, which uses AI to proactively survey ads in specific sectors.
Go deeper with GlobalData
Discover B2B Marketing That Performs
Combine business intelligence and editorial excellence to reach engaged professionals across 36 leading media platforms.
Nike’s advertisement, seen on 18 June 2025, promoted tennis polo shirts, using the term “sustainable materials.”
The company explained that the ad was “framed in general terms”, highlighting the benefits associated with a broad range of its products and services, not just a specific item.
Nonetheless, the ASA found that broad or absolute terms such as “sustainable” are likely to mislead consumers because their meaning is ambiguous.
The regulator pointed out that consumers could interpret such language to mean that the product has an overall positive or neutral environmental impact.
US Tariffs are shifting - will you react or anticipate?
Don’t let policy changes catch you off guard. Stay proactive with real-time data and expert analysis.
By GlobalData“The basis and meaning of the claim “sustainable materials” had not been made clear, and we had not seen evidence to support it. We therefore concluded the ad was likely to mislead,” ASA said.
Similarly, the ASA found Lacoste’s advertisement, which appeared on 24 June 2025 and described its children’s clothing line as “sustainable clothing,” to be “misleading.”
The advertising regulator noted that Lacoste’s ads lacked information explaining what was meant by “sustainable.”
The term “sustainable,” when used without clarification, was considered vague and unclear. Because it is an absolute claim, the ASA stated that it required a high degree of supporting evidence.
Lacoste acknowledged the difficulty in substantiating terms like “green,” “sustainable,” and “eco-friendly.”
Nike reported that its ad had already been removed as part of routine advertising procedures.
The BBC quoted a Nike spokesperson as saying: “We have engaged with the UK Advertising Standards Authority on this matter and have taken the necessary required actions. We remain committed to providing consumers with clear information to help them make the choices that are right for them.”
Lacoste also withdrew its ad immediately after receiving the complaint and assured not to repeat such claims in future advertising.
“The ad must not appear again in the form investigated,” ASA stated.
Meanwhile, a paid-for Google ad for Superdry, a clothing retailer, seen on 30 June 2025, stated “Superdry: Sustainable Style. Unlock a wardrobe that combines style and sustainability […]”.
The ASA challenged whether the claim “Sustainable style. Unlock a wardrobe that combines style and sustainability” was misleading.
Supergroup Internet Ltd t/a Superdry said the purpose of the ad was to highlight that they manufactured, sourced and sold products across a range of category types that had sustainability attributes and credentials which a consumer might purchase to form a ‘wardrobe’ or collection of clothes. It said consumers would understand the ad to mean the products within the collection were either stylish, had sustainable attributes and credentials, or both. In its view the ad did not make an absolute claim, nor did it suggest all Superdry products were sustainable.
Superdry assessed its raw materials and products against sustainability standards, resource materials and certifications produced by the Textile Exchange, an independent body. Products would only be determined to have sustainability attributes and credentials if they met those standards and a technical certificate was issued.
Superdry said it determined a product’s sustainability based on a three-pillar approach as set out in its FY24 Sustainability Report. But it acknowledged that, on reviewing the ad, the full life cycle of their products was not publicly available and, as such, the ad had been produced in error.
It pulled the ad and said it would not be used again.
In August this year, Italy’s competition authority (AGCM) fined fast fashion online retailer Shein €1m ($1.16m) for making misleading environmental claims.
