The recent M&S advert banned controversy has reignited the debate about body image representation in UK advertising. In July 2025, Marks & Spencer faced public and regulatory backlash after a model featured in their slim-fit trousers campaign was labeled as “unhealthily thin” by viewers and watchdogs alike. The advertisement, which appeared both online and on billboards, was promptly pulled after the Advertising Standards Authority ruling cited concerns about promoting unrealistic body standards.
This incident didn’t just raise eyebrows—it also highlighted a broader trend of evolving norms and tighter scrutiny around fashion campaigns. With the ASA becoming increasingly active in protecting public health and image standards, the boundaries for what’s considered “acceptable” in visual advertising are shifting fast.
As the debate around representation, regulation, and marketing ethics unfolds, the M&S case stands out as a pivotal moment, shaping the conversation across the retail and fashion sectors.
ASA Banned Advert Sparks Industry-Wide Reaction
The ASA banned advert from M&S was one of the most widely discussed ad removals in recent months. It wasn’t just the image that triggered the backlash—it was the implication. Viewers criticized the brand for glamorizing unhealthy body types, particularly as the fashion industry faces ongoing pressure to promote inclusivity.
This move by the ASA reflects a broader cultural reckoning with how thinness is portrayed in mainstream media. Similar to previous cases like the Next advert banned scenario earlier this year, regulatory authorities are making it clear that brands must think beyond aesthetics—they must consider the public’s mental and physical well-being too.
What Made the M&S Ad Cross the Line?
The photo at the center of the M&S ad ban body image issue featured a model in slim trousers with sharply contoured limbs, no visible muscle definition, and an overall appearance that critics said reinforced the dangerous ideal of extreme skinniness. Although M&S claimed the campaign was intended to highlight the tailoring of the trousers, many believed it inadvertently showcased harmful beauty standards.
The ASA upheld the complaints, emphasizing that advertisers must avoid presenting images that might suggest thinness is synonymous with beauty or success. This ASA unhealthy body image ruling sends a clear message to marketers: the era of unchecked visuals is ending.
The Return of ‘Heroin Chic’ and Its Backlash
The M&S controversy also comes amid what some call the return of ‘heroin chic’—a 90s-inspired aesthetic marked by underweight models, pale skin, and hollow cheeks. While fashion cycles often bring trends back from the past, this particular style has faced heavy criticism for its association with unhealthy lifestyles and eating disorders.
Today’s consumers, particularly younger audiences, are far more conscious of representation. They are questioning the resurgence of thin-centric fashion as outdated, triggering a body positivity backlash against brands perceived to be glorifying emaciated body types.
The Ozempic Skinny Trend and Its Influence on Fashion Ads
A contributing factor to this cultural shift is the rise of the Ozempic skinny trend, where celebrities and influencers openly or subtly showcase rapid weight loss results linked to diabetes drugs repurposed for aesthetic weight loss. This phenomenon has quietly seeped into ad campaigns, with brands favoring ultra-thin models again in a move that seems regressive.
The M&S ad unintentionally aligned with this trend, drawing additional criticism for being out of touch. This broader social context added fuel to the outcry, pushing the Advertising Standards Authority ruling to become even more significant in the ongoing regulation of promotional visuals.
Slim-Fit Trousers Model Ban Sets New Precedent
A key detail of the case was that it involved a slim-fit trousers model ban, setting a precedent that even product-specific visuals must comply with ethical body representation standards. The idea that a simple clothing ad could cross ethical lines suggests that brands must now vet models and campaign visuals far more rigorously.
The ban is not only about attire—it’s about the optics and the responsibility brands have in shaping societal standards. This ruling may force fashion marketers to reconsider who they cast and how they showcase clothing, especially in the UK.
Fashion Industry Regulations in the UK Are Getting Stricter
The fashion industry regulations UK are clearly evolving, with the ASA leading the charge. Previously, fashion ads largely operated in a grey area when it came to body image portrayal. However, this incident has clarified the expectations: inclusive representation and responsible messaging are now non-negotiables.
The UK joins other nations in re-evaluating how advertising impacts mental health, especially for impressionable audiences. With this shift, even mainstream giants like M&S must adapt or face reputational consequences.
The Power of Consumer Voices and Cultural Sensitivity
It’s important to recognize that this ruling was not initiated in a vacuum. The decision stemmed from real complaints made by viewers who felt uncomfortable or misrepresented by the image in the ad. Consumer awareness and activism are increasingly driving corporate accountability.
What makes this shift so powerful is that the public no longer passively absorbs advertising. People are speaking up about what feels wrong, and authorities are listening. This is reshaping not only marketing strategies but also the creative processes behind campaigns.
Is the ASA Going Too Far or Just Doing Its Job?
Some argue that the ASA banned advert was an overreach, stating that banning a campaign over model size is subjective and could lead to censorship of creative expression. Others see it as a necessary check on an industry that, for decades, has been complicit in perpetuating harmful ideals.
Regardless of where one stands, the truth is that brands today operate under intense scrutiny. They must balance visual appeal with ethical responsibility—something that’s easier said than done but increasingly non-negotiable.
What This Means for Future Campaigns
Moving forward, marketers will have to be more nuanced in their casting, styling, and photography choices. Featuring a diverse range of body types isn’t just a moral imperative—it’s a smart branding move. Authenticity sells, and consumers are rewarding brands that reflect real-world diversity.
We can expect that after the M&S advert banned decision, marketing teams will run pre-launch assessments to avoid similar controversies. These may include internal ethical reviews, public feedback previews, and even collaboration with psychologists or body image experts.
Brands Need to Relearn Visual Language
More than ever, brands must relearn how to communicate visually. Every pose, angle, and expression can carry unintended messages. In this case, M&S likely did not mean harm, but the absence of intention does not eliminate the impact.
This is where Advertising Standards Authority ruling plays a crucial role—it defines the lines brands may not cross, even unintentionally. Learning this visual language again means respecting the evolving cultural sentiments that now influence consumer behavior.
Cultural Memory and the Ghost of Heroin Chic
One reason the backlash was so intense is that the public remembers the damage of the early 2000s. Eating disorders, mental health crises, and exclusion were tied closely to that visual standard. The return of the ‘heroin chic’ look in fashion publications and runways has triggered alarm bells, and the M&S ad was seen as part of that re-emergence.
By contrast, campaigns celebrating fuller bodies, visible disabilities, and gender diversity have received praise. This shows that the public is not against aesthetic beauty—they just expect it to be broad, inclusive, and responsible.
Advertising Watchdogs and Their Growing Influence
Advertising watchdogs like the ASA are no longer reactive—they’re proactive. The ASA unhealthy body image policy enforcement is evidence of that. By banning ads that don’t meet inclusive standards, they’re helping shape a new kind of advertising ecosystem—one where beauty is no longer a narrow box but an open field.
This shift puts pressure not only on brands but on creative agencies and fashion photographers to think differently. It also gives more voice to viewers, encouraging them to report ads that feel damaging or exclusionary.
Lessons Learned from the Next Advert Banned Case
The Next advert banned scenario from earlier this year involved similar issues: a thin model, public concern, and an ASA takedown. Together with the M&S case, it forms a trend rather than an isolated event. These examples signal that this is no longer about a single brand or campaign—it’s a systemic shift.
Brands that fail to learn from these rulings risk not only public backlash but permanent damage to brand trust. In contrast, those that lead with intention, care, and clarity will likely earn loyalty in an increasingly values-driven marketplace.
FAQs
Because it featured a model deemed “unhealthily thin,” potentially promoting harmful beauty standards.
It signals stricter controls on how bodies are portrayed, especially around thinness.
Yes, it reflects growing pressure for brands to show diverse and healthy body images.
It refers to rapid weight loss aesthetics linked to off-label use of Ozempic for slimming.
Yes, especially those showing unrealistic or unhealthy representations of the body.
