Our approved summary
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).
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, which was misleading because that key fact was missing upfront (CAP 3.1, 3.3, 3.9).
What to do next
More ASA rulings explained
- The claim that the product was previously sold at 80 pounds was misleading because that price was not the genuine usual price, so the savings shown were not accurate (CAP 3.1, 3.7, 3.17).
- 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).
Official ruling
The official ruling is the definitive version. Mystery Slopper is not affiliated with the ASA.