Art investment ads under the microscope: ASA’s latest rulings offer a clear compliance roadmap

In December last year, the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) issued three rulings against ads promoting art investments. None of the three cases — Artscapy Ltd, HER Galleries Ltd (t/a Her Fine Art), and Hartco Consultancy — was the result of a complaint by a consumer, but rather each was identified by the ASA’s own, AI-driven, proactive monitoring of adverts online and forms part of its wider focus on what it describes as "unregulated investments". 

While art has been spoken of as an "asset class" for at least a couple of decades, especially with the post-2000 rise of art investment funds and wealth advisory services, and while the potential financial upside has always been one factor that motivates people to buy art, the marketing of art predominantly as an investment directly to individuals is a relatively recent phenomenon, with a proliferation of businesses adopting that approach, underpinned by targeted social media advertising, since 2020. 

While the three recent ASA decisions concerned specific advertisers, the principles apply broadly: when promoting art as an investment, clarity around risk and regulatory status is essential.

Issues upheld 

1. Failure to state that art investment is unregulated
   All three rulings emphasise that omitting the unregulated status of physical art investments is misleading. In each ruling, the ASA stated it “understood that the physical art investment market was not regulated within the UK, nor was it subject to the protections afforded by the Financial Services Compensation Scheme or the Financial Ombudsman Service.”

2. Not making clear that values can go down as well as up
   The CAP Code requires financial marketing communications not regulated by the FCA to make it clear the value of investments is variable and, unless guaranteed, could go down as well as up, which each of the three ads failed to do. 

3. Past performance claims presented without balanced context
   HER Galleries’ Facebook carousel included “257% RISE IN VALUE” and a specific example of a print acquired for £700 and sold for £2,500, but it “did not make clear that past performance did not necessarily give a guide for the future.” 

4. Targets, ROI figures, and inflation ‘hedge’ claims without clear risk framing
   Hartco’s ads referenced “368.75% ROI”, “10–15% TARGET RETURNS”, and “Build A Solid Tangible Hedge Against Inflation”—but did not make clear unregulated status, variability, or that past performance is not a guide to future results.

5. Reliance on landing page disclaimers wasn’t enough
   Artscapy argued that strict character limits on Google ads constrained the inclusion of detailed disclaimers, but noted that a full risk disclosure was provided on the linked landing page and in their terms and conditions. As far as the ASA was concerned, character limits were no excuse. The ruling highlighted "that relevant risk warnings prescribed by section 14 of the CAP Code needed to be in the initial ad and not later in the consumer journey, for instance on a landing page."

In all three cases, the ASA found that omitting the unregulated status and variability of returns rendered ads misleading. Furthermore, as Artscapy’s case shows, putting risk information only on the landing page does not cure the omission in the ad itself. Consumers need this information to make informed decisions at the point of impression, not just after clicking through. 

The ASA explained its understanding that the market “was not regulated within the UK, nor was it subject to the protections afforded by the Financial Services Compensation Scheme or the Financial Ombudsman Service”, which “was material information that consumers required.” 

Similarly, performance claims (e.g., “257% RISE IN VALUE”; “368.75% ROI”; “10–15% TARGET RETURNS”) require contextualisation: variability warnings and a clear statement that past performance is not a reliable guide to future results. Where such balancing statements were missing—or relegated to a landing page—the ASA upheld the complaint. 

Regulatory context for art‑as-investment marketing

The ASA is proactively monitoring online ads using Active Ad Monitoring and AI tools. These art rulings sit alongside wider work targeting unregulated investments and other high‑risk claims (e.g., greenwashing), with rulings published weekly that “set out… where we draw the line.”  For art market advertisers, expect continued enforcement against ads promoting investment opportunities that imply certainty of returns or stability without equally prominent risk information.

The ASA’s rulings align with a broader trend: regulators worldwide are tightening controls on art investment promotions. In June 2024, the Italian financial regulator clamped down on a company guaranteeing returns on art investments in social media adverts, citing concerns about misleading assurances and lack of investor protection. This reinforces the principle that promises of guaranteed returns in art markets are high-risk from a compliance standpoint.

It is also important to note what that ASA is not telling such businesses by means of these rulings – the ASA is NOT announcing that art may not be sold as an investment. In fact, these rulings rather confirm that, in the eyes of the ASA, it is specifically understood that art may be sold as an investment – but, if it is going to be, then such vendors need to be very careful about the content of that advertising, and the warnings that accompany it. 

It is worth noting additionally, that, in the UK at least, the ASA only enforces advertising standards, and is careful not to overstep its remit. It is the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) that might be better placed to cover promotions that stray into regulated territory—such as collective investment schemes or financial products – linked to art. Whilst the FCA has not yet taken the same steps as the Italian authorities, these ASA rulings could be a precursor to increased regulatory scrutiny from the FCA over art investment.

Practical compliance tips:

1. State unregulated status clearly in the ad itself
   Use a concise disclosure such as: “Art investment is not regulated in the UK and is not covered by the FSCS or FOS.” This mirrors the material information identified by the ASA. 

2. Include variability warnings wherever returns or benefits are mentioned
   Add: “The value of art investments is variable and can go down as well as up.” The ASA challenged ads that failed to make this clear.

3. Treat past performance examples with caution
   If you reference specific sales/price movements, pair them with: “Past performance is not a guide to future results” and avoid unrepresentative examples. The ASA criticised unqualified “257% RISE IN VALUE” and high ROI claims. 

4. Avoid implying guarantees or stability (e.g., “hedge against inflation”, “wealth‑building”)
   If using benefit‑led phrasing, ensure equally prominent risk qualifiers appear in the same ad frame. Artscapy acknowledged such phrasing could be misinterpreted without risk context; Hartco removed “Hedge Against Inflation” after ASA contact. 

5. Design for compliance in space‑limited formats
   If character limits prevent essential qualifications, rethink the ad (shorter claims; built‑in disclosure overlays) rather than relying on landing pages. 

Howard Kennedy helps its clients avoid and respond to ASA claims, and its lawyers are experienced in advising clients across the art sector. If you’re planning an art-as-investment campaign or have concerns about competitor claims, please contact a member of the Intellectual Property & Commercial team.