Our approved summary
The ads implied the diamonds were natural but did not clearly say they were synthetic, so the information was misleading to consumers (CAP 3.1, 3.3, 3.9).
Upheld by the ASA. Ruling published by the ASA on .
The ads implied the diamonds were natural but did not clearly say they were synthetic, so the information was misleading to consumers (CAP 3.1, 3.3, 3.9).
What to do next
More ASA rulings explained
- The ads implied the diamonds were natural but did not clearly say they were synthetic, which was misleading because that key fact was missing upfront (CAP 3.1, 3.3, 3.9).
- The claim that it was the UK's top accreditation body was misleading as no evidence showed it was the leader or allowed consumers to check the comparison with others (CAP 3.1, 3.7, 3.35).
Official ruling
The official ruling is the definitive version. Mystery Slopper is not affiliated with the ASA.