# ASA Bans Retailer Ads Over Misleading Carbon-Neutral Delivery Claims Regulators rule that four major retailers failed to clarify reliance on carbon offsetting credits. - **Source:** [edie](https://www.edie.net) - **Published:** 2026-11-11 - **Topic:** [Business](https://brifing.si/c/business) - **Original article:** - **On Brifing:** https://brifing.si/s/e39c75ff-45d8-4285-b75b-1720e0c41c8f ## Regulatory Action Against Retailers The Advertising Standards Authority has officially banned advertisements from four prominent retailers, including Who Gives A Crap and ProCook. The regulator ruled that claims regarding carbon-neutral or carbon-positive delivery were misleading to consumers. These companies failed to disclose that their environmental status relied heavily on purchasing carbon offsetting credits rather than emissions. ## Scope of the Investigation The ruling, published on 11 November 2026, also impacts Grind and SportsShoes.com. The ASA identified these specific advertisements through its Active Ad Monitoring system, which utilizes artificial intelligence to scan for potential breaches of advertising standards. The regulator concluded that the ads omitted material information required for consumers to make informed purchasing decisions. ## Failure to Explain Offsetting In every case, the ASA found that the companies presented carbon neutrality as an environmental benefit without explaining the underlying mechanism. Consumers could not distinguish whether the claims were based on actual emissions reductions at the source or through external carbon credits. This lack of clarity violated established environmental advertising codes of practice. ## Who Gives A Crap Defense Who Gives A Crap defended its Meta advertisement by stating it invested in renewable energy and electric vehicles. However, the ASA noted that the ad failed to distinguish these efforts from the role of offsetting. Furthermore, the company's landing page did not provide the necessary supporting information to clarify the specific basis of claims. ## ProCook and Grind Scrutiny ProCook argued its delivery service was managed by a third party, but the ASA maintained that the advertisement remained unclear. Meanwhile, the term carbon positive used by Grind was deemed ambiguous by the regulator. The ASA stated that such terminology could be misinterpreted by the public as suggesting a greater environmental benefit than existed. ## SportsShoes.com Compliance Issues SportsShoes.com claimed its deliveries were offset through a carbon sequestration project. The ASA found the advertisement lacked transparency regarding this process. Additionally, the website page intended to provide supporting evidence had been deleted, leaving consumers with no way to verify the environmental claims made in the original Google search advertisement. ## Breach of Advertising Codes The regulator concluded that all four companies breached rules 3.1 and 3.3 regarding misleading advertising, alongside rule 11.1 concerning environmental claims. These rules mandate that advertisers must explain the basis of their claims clearly. The ASA has ordered that these specific advertisements must not appear again in their current investigated forms. ## Broader Industry Implications This enforcement action is part of a wider review by the ASA into how companies communicate environmental benefits. As regulators tighten scrutiny on greenwashing, businesses must now ensure that any claims regarding carbon neutrality are fully transparent. Future marketing strategies will require clearer documentation to avoid similar regulatory interventions and reputational damage. ## Sources covering this story - https://www.edie.net/who-gives-a-crap-procook-and-grind-have-ads-banned-for-misleading-carbon-neutral-delivery-claims/ — --- _Summary written by Brifing from the original reporting. Copyright in the original article belongs to its publisher; read the full piece at the link above._