Author: Will Corry
Publisher: The Marketing Blog
Last reviewed: June 2026
The M&S advert banned by the Advertising Standards Authority became one of the most talked-about retail advertising stories of 2025.
The case focused on a Marks Spencer advert featuring a female model in slim fit trousers, a white top and large pointed shoes. The UK’s advertising watchdog said the pose, clothing, camera angle and styling gave the impression that the model was unhealthily thin.
Marks Spencer said it wanted to reflect all our customers and pointed to its womenswear sizing ranges from size 8 to 24.
However, the Advertising Standards Authority ASA still concluded that one particular image should not appear again in the same form.
The story was not only about thin models. It was about how one fashion photograph, used as a product listing, became an irresponsible advertisement.
Quick Answer: Why Was the M&S Advert Banned?
The M&S advert banned by the Advertising Standards Authority was judged socially irresponsible because it gave the impression that the model was unhealthily thin.
The watchdog said the model’s collar bones were prominent. It also said the model’s legs appeared thin because of the slim fit trousers and large pointed shoes.
The ASA said the camera angle made the model’s head look out of proportion with the rest of her body. That highlighted her small frame.
This does not mean the ASA said the model was in poor health.
The regulator judged the advertisement. It did not make a medical judgement about the model.
Marks Spencer told the ASA that its models were healthy and in good health. It also said the clothing meant to convey confidence, style and ease.
Even so, the ASA concluded that the ad gave the impression that the model was unhealthily thin.
The official ruling is available here:
https://www.asa.org.uk/rulings/marks-and-spencer-plc-g25-1289854-marks-and-spencer-plc.html
What Did the Banned M&S Ad Show?
The ad showed a female model wearing slim fit trousers, a white top and large pointed shoes. She held a bag and faced the camera.
It looked like a normal product listing. However, the ASA said the final display created a different impression.
The Advertising Standards Authority highlighted several details:
- the pose of the model;
- the model’s head;
- the model’s legs;
- the small frame created by the shot;
- the slim fit trousers;
- the white top;
- the large pointed shoes;
- the camera angle;
- the choice of clothing;
- the way the photograph was used in a commercial setting.
The ASA said the large pointed shoes emphasised the slenderness of her legs. It also said the camera angle made the model’s head appear out of proportion.
This is why the ad banned over unhealthily thin concerns became a national story.
It was not simply a debate about thin models. It was about the full effect of a fashion advertisement.
What the Advertising Standards Authority Said
The Advertising Standards Authority ASA investigated four complaints about Marks Spencer ads.
The complainants said the ads were socially irresponsible because they believed the models appeared unhealthily thin.
The ASA looked at a website feature models wearing a pink polka dot dress, a product listing showing the slim fit trousers outfit, another display of the dress and related email marketing.
It did not uphold every complaint.
Instead, the ASA upheld only one complaint. That complaint related to the particular image of the model in slim fit trousers, a white top and large pointed shoes.
The ASA said the model’s shoulders and upper chest were visible. It said her collar bones were prominent. It also said the pose of the model and the choice of clothing meant the ad gave the impression that the model was unhealthily thin.
The Advertising Standards Authority concluded that the advertisement breached the CAP Code rule on social responsibility.
The regulator said the ad should not appear again in the form complained about.
Why Only One Particular Image Failed
This part of the story is important.
The ASA did not decide that all the models in the Marks Spencer campaign looked unhealthy. It also did not ban the use of thin models.
It judged each advertisement separately.
The website feature models in the pink polka dot dress did not fail in the same way. The ASA considered their faces, arms, legs and overall proportion. It said they did not appear unhealthily thin.
The particular image in the slim fit trousers was different.
Several details worked together. The slim fit trousers highlighted the model’s legs. The large pointed shoes emphasised the slenderness of her legs. The white top exposed the collar bone area. The camera angle affected the model’s head and small frame.
That mix created the problem.
| Factor | How it affected the advert |
|---|---|
| Pose | The pose of the model drew attention to her upper body |
| Clothing | The choice of clothing made the frame appear sharper |
| Footwear | The large pointed shoes made the model’s legs look longer and thinner |
| Camera angle | The model’s head appeared out of proportion |
| Product listing | The display was used to sell clothes |
| Overall effect | The ad gave the impression that the model was unhealthily thin |
This is why marketers should not treat fashion product images as simple catalogue content.
A product listing can still be an advertisement.
What Marks Spencer Said in Response
Marks Spencer said it did not intend to create an irresponsible advert.
The high street retailer said its womenswear sizing ranges from size 8 to 24. It said it wanted to reflect all our customers and show clothes across a range of body types.
The company also said its models were healthy and in good health.
M&S said the model had a toned physique. It said the clothing meant to convey confidence. It also said the large pointed shoes were chosen because they suited the outfit.
After receiving the complaint, Marks Spencer removed the particular image and apologised for any offence caused.
That response was sensible.
The retailer did not attack the Advertising Standards Authority. It explained its view, removed the product listing and accepted the outcome.
For a household brand, that was the right move.
Timeline of the M&S Advert Ban
| Date | What happened |
|---|---|
| April and May 2025 | The Marks Spencer advert appeared on digital channels |
| 2025 | Four people complained to the Advertising Standards Authority |
| 23 July 2025 | The ASA published its decision |
| After the complaint | M&S removed the product listing |
| After the decision | The story was reported by ITV, The Guardian and other media |
| July 2025 | The debate widened into fashion advertising and thin models |
This timeline shows why the case moved quickly.
A single product listing became a reputation issue within weeks.
Why This Became a Wider Debate About Thin Models
The M&S advert banned story landed during a wider debate about thin models in fashion.
Many consumers, journalists and campaigners have raised concerns that the industry is returning to ultra-slim visual standards.
The Guardian reported on the M&S case and linked it to wider concerns over body image in fashion. ITV also reported that the ad banned over unhealthily thin concerns had been removed by M&S.
The issue is not whether slim people can appear in advertising. They can.
The issue is whether an advertisement uses pose, styling, lighting, camera angle or clothing to make a model appear thin in a way that looks unhealthy.
That is where ASA guidance becomes important.
The regulator does not judge a model’s private health. It judges what the public sees.
ASA Guidance on Body Image
ASA guidance says advertisers must take care when presenting body shape, weight and appearance.
The ASA guidance on social responsibility and body image explains that ads can create concern if they show protruding bones, obvious gaps between limbs, or body parts that look out of proportion.
That is relevant to the Marks Spencer advert banned case because the watchdog referred to the model’s collar bones, model’s head, model’s legs and small frame.
The ASA guidance is available here:
https://www.asa.org.uk/advice-online/social-responsibility-body-image.html
The ASA’s broader social responsibility advice is here:
https://www.asa.org.uk/advice-online/social-responsibility.html
The key point is simple.
Advertisers should not present an unhealthy body image as aspirational.
That does not mean brands cannot use thin models. However, they must avoid an irresponsible display.
How the M&S Case Compares With Next and Zara
The Marks Spencer advert banned decision was not an isolated case.
The ASA has also acted against other fashion retailers.
In February 2025, a Next denim leggings ad was banned over unhealthily thin concerns. The model in that denim leggings ad was seated, and the complaint focused on how her legs appeared.
The Guardian report on the Next denim leggings case is here:
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2025/feb/12/next-ad-banned-over-unhealthily-thin-model-in-digitally-altered-leggings
In August 2025, the ASA also ruled against Zara product images featuring models who appeared unhealthily thin.
The Zara decision is here:
https://www.asa.org.uk/rulings/itx-uk-ltd-a25-1290700-itx-uk-ltd.html
These cases show a common pattern.
The regulator looks at the model and the choice of clothing. It looks at the pose. It looks at whether styling has emphasised the slenderness of her legs, arms or upper body. It also looks at whether the final photograph has highlighted her small frame.
That is why fashion brands need stronger checks before publication.
Unique Marketing Insight: The 10-Second Body Image Risk Test
Here is the part most news reports miss.
A retailer does not need a long committee meeting to catch many of these problems.
It needs a fast visual test before product images go live.
Call it the 10-Second Body Image Risk Test.
Before publishing any fashion advertisement, the reviewer should look at the photograph for 10 seconds and answer five questions:
| Question | Why it matters |
|---|---|
| What do I notice first: the clothes or the body size? | The product should lead the display |
| Do the shoes, pose or crop make the model appear thin? | Styling can change the message |
| Does the model’s head look in proportion? | Disproportion can create a small frame effect |
| Are collar bones, legs or arms highlighted more than the product? | This can create an unhealthily thin model impression |
| Would this look responsible to all our customers? | The final display must suit the full audience |
This test does not replace legal review.
However, it gives marketing teams a practical filter.
If the viewer notices slimness before the clothes, the image needs another look.
That is the unique lesson from the M&S case.
The problem may not appear in the brief. It may not appear during casting. It may not appear during styling.
It may appear only in the final photograph.
Product Images Are Now Brand Safety Assets
For years, marketers treated brand safety as a media buying issue.
They asked: where will the advert appear?
Will it run next to harmful content?
Will the platform protect the brand?
The M&S advert banned case shows that product images are now brand safety assets too.
A website product listing can create national coverage. A single photograph can trigger an ASA complaint. A retailer can face criticism even when the company says the model was healthy and the clothing meant to convey confidence.
That changes the job of marketing teams.
Product images should no longer be reviewed only for colour, crop and commercial appeal.
They should also be reviewed for:
- body image risk;
- proportion;
- pose;
- use of thin models;
- choice of clothing;
- camera angle;
- product listing context;
- representation across varying sizes;
- likely consumer interpretation.
This is not about making fashion bland.
It is about making sure creative choices do not accidentally create an irresponsible advertisement.
Why the Website and App Placement Matters
Some people may ask why a website feature models or app product listing should be treated as an advert.
The answer is simple.
It is commercial content. It sells clothes.
A website display, mobile listing or email promotion can influence what consumers buy. So it can be judged under advertising rules.
Marks Spencer used the particular image in a shopping context. Customers could view the clothes and make purchase decisions.
That made the photograph part of the advertisement.
This matters for every retailer.
If your website feature models in product shots, those product images need the same care as paid media.
That includes images on:
- the website;
- the app;
- email marketing;
- paid social;
- organic social;
- shopping feeds;
- marketplace pages;
- campaign landing pages.
Each display can carry risk.
What Fashion Marketers Should Learn
The M&S advert banned case gives fashion marketers a clear checklist.
First, review the final photograph, not only the casting decision.
Second, make sure the clothes remain the focus.
Third, check whether the model’s head, arms, legs or small frame appear out of proportion.
Fourth, look at the shoes. Large pointed shoes can make the model’s legs appear longer and thinner.
Fifth, compare the shot with other product images. If one photograph makes a model appear thin compared with the rest, it may need replacing.
Sixth, show models in varying sizes where possible. A wider range of representation helps reflect all our customers.
Seventh, keep notes on the approval process. If a complaint arrives, the company can show it considered responsible advertising practices.
These steps are simple.
They can protect the model, the retailer and consumers.
What M&S Did Well
Marks Spencer did several things right after the complaint.
The high street retailer removed the particular image. It apologised for offence caused. It explained its womenswear sizing ranges. It said it wanted to reflect all our customers.
That helped reduce the damage.
The company also avoided a public fight with the Advertising Standards Authority.
That matters because body image is a sensitive issue. A combative statement could have made the story run for more weeks.
Instead, M&S kept its response measured.
What M&S Could Have Done Better
The problem should have been caught earlier.
A basic review could have raised questions about the large pointed shoes, model’s head, camera angle and small frame.
The approval team could have asked:
- Does the model appear thin in this photograph?
- Does the ad give the impression of an unhealthily thin model?
- Do the slim fit trousers and large pointed shoes emphasise the slenderness of her legs?
- Does the white top draw attention to prominent collar bones?
- Does the product listing represent our customers fairly?
- Would the display look responsible across the country?
- Does the website feature models in varying sizes nearby?
These questions may feel simple.
However, they are exactly the type of checks that can stop an ad banned over unhealthily thin concerns from going live.
Search Intent: What Readers Want to Know
People searching for M&S advert banned usually want a direct answer.
They want to know what happened, what the advert showed, what the ASA said, and whether Marks Spencer removed it.
A strong article should answer every common query.
| Search question | Answer |
|---|---|
| Why was the M&S advert banned? | The ASA said the ad gave the impression that the model was unhealthily thin |
| What did the advert show? | A model in slim fit trousers, a white top and large pointed shoes |
| Was every M&S advert banned? | No. Only one particular image failed |
| Did M&S apologise? | Yes. It apologised for any offence caused |
| What did M&S say? | Its womenswear sizing ranges from size 8 to 24 and it wants to reflect all our customers |
| What should marketers learn? | Review pose, clothing, shoes, camera angle and product images before publication |
This is why a marketing-led article can beat a short news report.
It answers the basic question and explains the wider advertising lesson.
For more advertising analysis, read our feature on the John Travolta commercial.
For a digital brand character example, see our guide to Samsung Sam.
You may also like our guide to T-Mobile commercial actors.
For another UK campaign breakdown, read our article on the Nationwide advert actor.
References and Source URLs
Official and supporting sources:
- Advertising Standards Authority ruling on Marks and Spencer plc:
https://www.asa.org.uk/rulings/marks-and-spencer-plc-g25-1289854-marks-and-spencer-plc.html - ASA guidance on social responsibility and body image:
https://www.asa.org.uk/advice-online/social-responsibility-body-image.html - ASA guidance on social responsibility:
https://www.asa.org.uk/advice-online/social-responsibility.html - ITV News report on the M&S case:
https://www.itv.com/news/2025-07-23/marks-and-spencer-advert-banned-for-featuring-unhealthily-thin-model - The Guardian report on the M&S case:
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2025/jul/23/ms-advert-banned-for-featuring-model-who-looks-unhealthily-thin - The Guardian report on the Next denim leggings case:
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2025/feb/12/next-ad-banned-over-unhealthily-thin-model-in-digitally-altered-leggings - ASA ruling on Zara:
https://www.asa.org.uk/rulings/itx-uk-ltd-a25-1290700-itx-uk-ltd.html
FAQ: M&S Advert Banned
Why was the M&S advert banned?
The M&S advert was banned because the Advertising Standards Authority concluded that one product listing gave the impression that the model was unhealthily thin.
What did the banned M&S advert show?
It showed a model wearing slim fit trousers, a white top and large pointed shoes while holding a bag.
Did the ASA ban every Marks Spencer advert?
No. The ASA reviewed several ads but upheld the complaint against only one particular image.
Did Marks Spencer apologise?
Yes. Marks Spencer removed the product listing and apologised for any offence caused.
Was the model actually unhealthy?
The ASA did not make a medical judgement about the model. It judged the impression created by the advertisement.
Why did the large pointed shoes matter?
The ASA said the large pointed shoes emphasised the slenderness of her legs and contributed to the overall impression.
What did M&S say about sizing?
M&S said its womenswear sizing ranges from size 8 to 24 and that it wants to reflect all our customers.
What is the marketing lesson from this case?
The marketing lesson is that product images need a body image risk review before publication. Pose, clothing, camera angle, shoes and final display can all change how consumers read an advert.
Final Takeaway
The M&S advert banned by the Advertising Standards Authority was not just a row about thin models.
It was a warning about how one fashion photograph can become a brand risk.
Marks Spencer said the model was healthy. It said the clothing meant to convey confidence. It also pointed to its womenswear sizing ranges and its aim to reflect all our customers.
The ASA still decided that the ad gave the impression that the model was unhealthily thin.
That is the lesson.
Fashion brands cannot rely only on intent. They must judge the final display as consumers will see it.
The pose, camera angle, large pointed shoes, white top, model’s head and small frame all mattered. Together, they turned a normal product listing into an ad banned over unhealthily thin concerns.
For retailers, the safest route is clear.
Check every advertisement before it goes live. Check the website feature models. Check the product images. Check whether models appear in varying sizes. Check whether styling has highlighted slimness too much.
That is how brands protect models, consumers and reputation.
Author Bio
Will Corry is the publisher of The Marketing Blog. He writes about advertising, retail campaigns, commercial actors and the marketing lessons behind high-profile media stories.