ASA bans ‘misleading’ Nike trainers advert
Nike therefore confirmed that the ad was created and published by The Sole Supplier without any input or oversight from them
The Advertising Standards Authority has banned a Nike trainers ad for potentially misleading customers.
The ad, which featured an image of a pair of trainers with the caption ‘Now just £26 at Nike!’, clicked through to a product listing on the Nike website but was only limited to sizes UK 3 to UK 6.
As a result, the ASA, who understood the product was intended for older children and limited to sizes UK 3 to 6, challenged whether the ad was misleading.
To lay more emphasis on the discount, the ad also featured an exploding head emoji and black heart emoji, which implied that the advertised price was a significant discount against the usual selling price of the trainers
Additionally, the ASA also said that because children’s shoes were typically cheaper than adult shoes, and were exempt from VAT, it considered that the average consumer would not regard £26 as a heavily discounted price for children’s trainers, and therefore would understand the price referred to a pair of adult trainers.
The paid-for ad, which was seen in December 2023, was published on The Sole Supplier’s X account.
Nike said the ad was created and published by The Sole Supplier, and confirmed that it had a commercial relationship with online footwear marketplace, whereby The Sole Supplier would receive commission for sales generated through its ads.
The sportswear brand explained that the contractual agreement allowed The Sole Supplier to advertise Nike and its products without prior approval.
The Sole Supplier, however, was required to ensure that ads complied with applicable laws and regulations, including the CAP Code.
Nike therefore confirmed that the ad was created and published by The Sole Supplier without any input or oversight from them. However, the group did not believe that the ad was misleading.
Given the promotional price and the caption of the ad, Nike believed a reasonable consumer would assume that there would be some limitation on the item, such as the availability of sizes. Furthermore, the group stated that the lack of complaints supported the view that consumers did not find the ad misleading.
Meanwhile, The Sole Supplier said the ad guided users to more detailed information about the product, including what sizes were available.
However, it was amenable to considering how to present size information more prominently in future advertising, within the constraints of the platform.
Both Nike and The Sole Supplier have been asked to ensure that in future, their ads did not omit material information, such as limitations on sizing, which would cause consumers to make a transactional decision they would not have otherwise taken.
ASA said: “While we acknowledged that the linked page contained clear information about the available sizes, we considered that the ad implied that the shoes were for adults, and that consumers who clicked through from the ad would be doing so on that understanding.
“Because the ad did not make clear that the advertised trainers were older children’s shoes or limited in adult sizing, we concluded that the ad was likely to be misleading by omission.”
