The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) has banned ads from fashion retailers Superdry, Nike and Lacoste, that included the term “sustainable”, “sustainable materials” or “sustainable style”, but could not provide evidence to back up the claims.

The rulings form part of wider work investigating environmental claims in the retail fashion sector and were flagged for review by the regulators‘ AI detection system.

LACOSTE

The Lacoste ad was seen on 24 June 2025 and read “Lacoste Kids – Sustainable […] clothing”. It was challenged by the watchdog on the basis that the sustainable claim was misleading.

Lacoste responded to the ASA’s investigation, highlighting that it had been actively working for multiple years to reduce the carbon footprint of their product value chain. Some methods the brand used, which were validated by the Science Based Targets initiative, included using committed raw materials, reducing water usage and preserving biodiversity.

It added that since 2022, it had tried to make its Kids’ clothing range more sustainable by using more certified fabrics and at the time the ad was published, roughly 78% of its online children’s clothing range was made of certified fabrics.

Lacoste explained its claims were based on life cycle analyses conducted on the collection, with each product being individually assessed. It then compared the results of the analysis with its Spring-Summer 2022 collection and found a reduction in its environmental footprint in the 2025 collection compared to the 2022 line.

However, the brand did acknowledge that claims such as sustainable and eco-friendly were difficult to prove and removed the ad as soon as the complaint was received.

Additionally, the brand gave the watchdog assurance that they would not ” repeat the claim in the form made in the ad”.

The ASA ruled that the ad breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1 (Misleading advertising), 3.7 (Substantiation), 11.1, 11.2, 11.3 and 11.4 (Environmental claims) and therefore it should not appear again in the form complained of.

Nike

The watchdog also investigated a paid-for Google ad from Nike that was seen on 18 June 2025.

It stated “Nike Tennis Polo Shirts – Serve An Ace With Nike[…]Sustainable Materials”.

The sportswear brand responded to the regulators’ queries, explaining its ad was “framed in general terms” and was intended to “call out the benefits” of a range of its products and services rather than being specific to one particular product or service.

The ad referred to several promotional claims, including delivery, discounts and payment options, as well as the aforementioned sustainable materials.

Nike claimed the reference to sustainable materials in the ad was intended to show the availability of products on Nike’s website that incorporated recycled materials. It said it expected the reference to indicate that some but not all products by Nike were sustainable.

The brand added that as the ad was a paid-for Google ad, there was a character limit of 30 characters for the headline and 90 for the main text body, which limited the level of detail the sportswear firm could give in the ad.

It explained that when customers clicked on the ad, they would have been directed to a website page showcasing the brand’s tennis polo shirt range, and some of the line had a sustainable materials banner.

The ASA ruled that the ad breached the CAP code and told the retailer that it must not appear again in its complained-of form.

Superdry

The ASA also upheld a ruling against Supergroup Internet Ltd t/a Superdry.

The British clothing retailer was investigated by the ASA after its paid-for Google ad was flagged by AI detectors. The ad read “Sustainable style. Unlock a wardrobe that combines style and sustainability”.

Superdry responded to the watchdog’s investigation, highlighting that the purpose of its advert was to highlight that they manufactured, sourced and sold products that could be considered sustainable.

It said the ad did not “make an absolute claim” nor suggest all its products were eco-friendly. The brand added that it was a Google Performance Max advert, meaning that what shoppers searched on Google determined where abouts on the Superdry site they would land.

The ASA stated that it believed that the term sustainable in the context of Superdry’s ad was likely to be understood to mean all of its products would have “no detrimental impact on the environment”.

It was therefore ruled that the ad was misleading and must not appear again.

Click here to sign up to Retail Gazette‘s free daily email newsletter