Regulation source
ASA/CAP AI advertising sources
Use this page when an AI ad relies on vague AI-powered wording, broad creative claims, or companion-style positioning. The cases below show what advertising evidence and safety-boundary questions ASA/CAP materials raise.
This is a source-organized view of reviewed cases and claim patterns. It is not legal advice, a compliance certification, a company ranking, or a regulator database.
Source scope
AI advertising substantiation, vague AI-powered claims, creative-tool boundaries, and ad-safety context.
ASA/CAP sources are most useful when the issue is the ad itself: what the creative, headline, descriptor, or placement makes a viewer expect about an AI product. The ASA/CAP enforcement focus has covered recurring wording patterns including: vague AI-powered or AI-enabled descriptors that do not explain what the AI actually does or produces; creative-tool ads that imply unlimited or harmful use without visible restrictions or consent limits; and companion or roleplay positioning that lacks audience controls and prohibited-scenario safeguards. The table below also includes additional patterns that carry the same substantiation burden. For each pattern, the central question is whether the ad gives viewers an accurate and complete impression of the product—not whether the underlying technology is capable. ASA/CAP materials apply primarily to advertising placed or targeted in the UK market; they do not address internal product engineering, data-handling practices, or regulatory compliance outside advertising standards. Rulings focus on the specific ad creative and placement context, not the product category or vendor as a whole. Use this page to compare the ad wording you are reviewing to a documented pattern, then use the buyer question to assess what substantiation or restriction notice the ad should include. Do not use it to clear an ad for publication, rate product safety, or treat this page as a complete advertising-rules database.
Latest reviewed source ASA/CAP AI as a marketing term · November 13, 2024
Source timeline
Use these dated source points to understand which AI claim patterns this page can help you compare before you open a case detail.
-
November 13, 2024
ASA/CAP AI as a Marketing Term report reviews how advertisers use AI as a descriptor and whether the ad explains what AI does.
Vague AI-powered wording should name the AI function, input, output, user-visible benefit, and human oversight boundary.
-
February 11, 2026
Aurai Ai ruling addresses an AI roleplay app ad where companion-style positioning appeared next to harmful creative and audience-safety concerns.
AI companion and roleplay ads need visible audience controls, content boundaries, prohibited scenarios, and ad-review safeguards.
-
March 18, 2026
PixVideo ruling addresses an AI video maker ad whose visuals and broad creative wording implied harmful image-editing uses.
AI creative-tool ads need allowed-use boundaries, consent limits, prohibited content controls, and safeguards that match the promoted workflow.
Claim patterns and evidence gaps
Match the public AI wording you saw to a pattern below, then use the buyer question to decide what evidence to request or whether to check the exact wording.
| Claim pattern | Evidence gap | Buyer question |
|---|---|---|
| AI-powered, AI-driven, or AI-enabled used without function detail | Specific AI function, input, output, user-visible benefit, human oversight, and comparison with a non-AI workflow. | If the word AI is removed from the ad, what concrete product capability remains? |
| Creative freedom or no-boundaries claims for AI image or video tools | Allowed-use policy, prohibited content categories, consent rules, automated blocking, human review boundary, and ad creative review process. | What content does the product block, and are those limits visible in the same marketing context as the creative-freedom claim? |
| AI companion, roleplay, or no-judgment positioning | Audience controls, age targeting, prohibited scenarios, sexual or violent content moderation, complaint handling, and platform escalation process. | What audience and content controls prevent the ad from suggesting unsupported or prohibited interaction patterns? |
| AI benefit claims in short-form ads | Plain-language benefit, evidence that AI produces that benefit, product restrictions, material limitations, and whether the ad shows the same workflow users receive. | What evidence shows the advertised benefit comes from AI in the product workflow, not from editing, selection, or unsupported creative presentation? |
| AI-generated likeness, voice, or creative work presented without disclosure | AI-generation disclosure, consent basis for any real person's likeness or voice used, platform labeling requirements, and whether the ad creates a materially false impression about authorship or identity. | Does the ad disclose that the creative, voice, or likeness is AI-generated, and does any real person appear without explicit consent and required disclosure? |
| AI speed, productivity, or time-saving claims in ads | Task scope tested, baseline comparison, user group and conditions, excluded task types, and whether the ad result matches the workflow a typical buyer would actually use. | What test record supports the speed or productivity claim, and does the test match the task complexity, user skill level, and workflow conditions a buyer would experience? |
| AI comparison claims implying superiority over alternatives | Comparison scope and date, named or category comparison basis, test methodology, excluded product types, and whether the claim remains current given model and competitor updates. | What comparison basis supports the superiority claim, and does the test scope, date, and methodology match the context in which a buyer would use both products? |
Reviewed cases
Open a case to see the original source, claim type, evidence gap, buyer questions, wording boundaries, and update status.
- ASA/CAP Vague AI-powered
ASA/CAP AI as a marketing term
Risk pattern: AI used as a marketing descriptor without explaining function, input, output, or user-visible benefit
Evidence gap: What AI specifically does in the product, what input the AI processes, what output it produces, how performance compares to a non-AI version of the same functio...
See evidence gap and buyer questions → - ASA/CAP Compliance / Safety
ASA PixVideo AI video maker ad
Risk pattern: AI creative-tool ad implying unrestricted or harmful image editing without visible safeguards, consent limits, or content restrictions
Evidence gap: Allowed-use policy, prohibited content categories, consent rules for editing people in images, automated detection and blocking methods, human review boundary,...
See evidence gap and buyer questions → - ASA/CAP Compliance / Safety
ASA Aurai Ai roleplay ad
Risk pattern: AI companion and roleplay positioning without clear ad-safety controls, content boundaries, or audience safeguards
Evidence gap: Ad review process, age and audience targeting controls, prohibited roleplay scenarios, sexual content and violence moderation, prompt and response safeguards, p...
See evidence gap and buyer questions →
How to use this source page
- Match the source to the claim context. AI advertising substantiation, vague AI-powered claims, creative-tool boundaries, and ad-safety context.
- Read the closest case. Compare the risk pattern and evidence gap with the claim you are reviewing.
- Check the exact wording. Paste the public URL or claim text into the checker to get evidence requests, buyer questions, and wording boundaries for the specific claim.
Source updates and corrections
If a source status, date, company response, or case context is outdated, send a correction. Submissions are private by default and reviewed before any update appears on this page.
Send a correction →