Nike and Sky ads banned for their online marketing tactics
Advertisements from sports giant Nike and broadcaster Sky have been banned for potentially misleading customers into spending more than intended.
Nike’s social media ad featured trainers priced at £26, but it turned out that this price was only for children’s sizes. Sky’s advertisement failed to clarify that a free trial for Now TV would automatically renew into a paid subscription unless cancelled.
The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) is intensifying its scrutiny of online ads like these, arguing that their design can mislead consumers. Both companies defend their advertising approaches. Nike’s ad included emojis to highlight the deal, which the ASA noted might lead consumers to expect significant discounts and assume a range of sizes was available. In reality, the trainers were limited to sizes UK3 to UK6, and the lower price reflected the lack of VAT on children’s shoes.
The ASA is investigating how companies employ “online choice architecture” after receiving multiple complaints. These tactics, often referred to as “dark patterns,” can manipulate users by hiding key information until later in the purchasing process. This includes practices like “drip pricing,” where small fees are added throughout the buying journey, reducing price transparency.
Consumer group Which? reported that such tactics can leave consumers feeling manipulated and, in some cases, financially harmed. The ASA criticized Sky for how it presented subscription options for its Now TV streaming service, noting that free trials for its Cinema and Boost services were automatically added and would auto-renew for a fee unless cancelled. Although the terms were disclosed, they were in a smaller font and less prominent color, likely to be overlooked by users.
Sky maintained that the ad’s presentation was clear and that the concept of a seven-day free trial is widely understood.
Nike stated that the ad was created by The Sole Supplier, an online footwear marketplace, without their oversight, but argued that consumers would reasonably expect some limitations on availability.
Additionally, the ASA banned an advertisement from food replacement company Huel, marking the third ad from the brand to be banned in recent months, as the claims about health benefits and cost savings could not be substantiated.
About The Author
