February 5, 2021

UK Influencers Are Not Longer Allowed to Use Filters in Promotional Posts Will The US Follow?

The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) has ruled that UK influencers are not allowed to use filters on promotional, ad, and sponsored material they post on Instagram. This basically means if influencers or celebrities are teaming up with brands to promote and review products on Instagram they are no longer allow to exaggerate the claims of the product using a filter. Say if a celebrity is the UK is given a lip plumper and paid to post about it on Instagram and proceeds to use Facetune to make her or his lips look bigger this is in direct violation of the ASA ruling and the post will be removed by Instagram and they won’t be able to re-post it. I had fun with this yesterday on Instagram yesterday doing a before and after as seen above!

Who’s the ASA?
ASA stands for Advertising Standards Authority and is the self-regulatory organization of the advertising industry in the United Kingdom.

The #filterdrop revolution was started by UK-based influencer Sasha Pallari several months ago and her call to brands and influencers to start disclosing the use of a filter when promoting products. Her hard work paid off because the ASA listened and made the ruling earlier this week to begin enforcing this law.

If anyone remembers back in 2013 it was ruled that mascara brands, particularly Covergirl, would have to start disclosing when false lashes were used because the ads were so exaggerated it was considered false advertising. Filters are pretty much the same concept. If you’re using a moisturizer that promotes that it will heal acne and skin imperfections while proceeding to be paid about how great it worked for your skin and posting images that filter out redness and blemishes while giving your skin a smooth finish this is in fact misleading and false advertising.

I think many of us are logical enough to realize that the false advertising has been used to sell us products for years now in the beauty industry. Flawless, photoshopped images are pretty much the call of duty in the beauty and fashion world. Many people who are involved in the beauty industry and community have just come to accept it and we know not to base our purchases off these marketing and promotional images. However, younger girls or boys just getting involved with makeup are easily mislead. Filters may be the new norm for making someone look flawless but promotional images that have been photoshopped to death have been around longer.

Will the ruling change the way we beauty in the future? Who knows! It’s interesting to see how this pans out. It could directly impact how products, models, and the beauty industry advertises in the future.

Does the ASA ruling have affect on US Influencers?
No. However, we have seen a variety of different rules and regulations come out of the UK such as privacy laws that have impacted US law. This means there is a chance that the US will start doing something about filters in advertising for US-based influencers, celebs, and brands.

Right now this isn’t something that concerns the US but I have a feeling it might trickle down at some point.

How do you feel about the ASA ruling?

Would you rather seeing perfectly flawless photos in product placement and advertising and live in the illusion that you’ll experience the same if you buy a certain product?

Or do you demand the realness?

10 Comments

About the Muse

Isabella MuseIsabella is just an average everyday geeky girl who doesn’t blend her eyeshadow correctly, wears too much blush, and hopes she never finds her holy grail products because she likes the thrill of the chase so much. Her mission is to bring you super honest reviews on makeup, skincare, fragrance and all things beauty. She’s in no way an expert on the topic and she sure as hell isn’t a super model. But she’s passionate about makeup and is seeking like-minded individuals that like pina coladas, getting caught in the rain, and ones that enjoy spending hundreds of dollars at Sephora without feeling buyer’s remorse. If you’re that person feel free to reach out and leave a comment or follow me on Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, and Bloglovin‘.

Leave a Comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Comments

  • Mary B.

    I think this is a good move. As we get older and have more life experience, we know that perfectly smooth flawless skin is as rare as unicorn sightings. But younger girls think it’s real and wonder why they don’t have it or can’t get it too, which sets up poor self-image and in some cases self-loathing.

    It’s interesting to look at old fashion/beauty magazines and watch the progression from “pretty but real” into “totally unrealistic.” If you get Brand X magazines a year apart you can really watch it unfold. Up ’til about the mid-70s, models were pretty but had obvious differences such as lots of freckles, imperfect teeth, tiny scars, and so forth. A few years later you could see the same model but now all her freckles were gone and her teeth looked like Chiclets.

    Anyway, we can’t tell what skin care and makeup really looks like or can do if it’s all faked.

  • Cameron

    I don’t want to see flawless photos. Using a filter to exaggerate what a product does is false advertising, is it not? I am not sure how they can technically get away with it. I know that photos use a lot of tricks with lights and filters to make things look better, but how many people do not know this? Plus, I am getting tired of having to remind myself of that every time I see a product photo… It sets an unrealistic expectation for people of what they “should” look like.

  • Jane

    Bring me the reality. If I wanted to see what a companies digital artists could do, I’d look for that. My mom had a righteous collection of 1970s women’s magazines (Sphere, anyone?) and, upon finding them as an adult, I loved that the ads featured skin and normal eyelashes with mascara on them. No inserts. If there was airbrushing, it was minor, because you could see skin texture. I’d like ads to show what they actually sell, in progress.

  • MDW

    Maybe as an ingenious precedent for advertising other products and services. Like buying a home and a wide angle camera lens being used to make the spaces look bigger. And putting a Mercedes in front of the home for sale.

    Start the law with less consequential products and services like mascara or styling. So the protection will already be in place for larger purchases.

    Oh if eyeliner, lashes and concealer was easy to apply like the photoshop!

  • Dee

    First off,you are not geeky and your eyes are not too big for your face! You have beautiful eyes and I am always happy when you post eye shadow reviews so we get to see them.

    So much of what we see online and in print ads are unrealistic and really laughable. There is an online ad for a beauty oil and one of the women featured says she is 70 years old and used to have severe lip lines and now has none thanks to this oil. She says this with her perfectly unlined, taut face. I do enjoy watching a few beauty channels on youtube but realize the youtubers are lit to perfection so what we see there isn’t completely accurate either. I understand we have to take all of it with a grain of salt. But like you say, a younger audience may not realize that. I remember when I was in high school and found out that what I saw in a magazine ad wasn’t real. I was just shocked! Makes me laugh now. But I remember feeling relieved too! Even my favorite models didn’t look like their pictures.
    To me, it’s obvious when a filter is being used but to a younger audience it might be helpful.

  • Tippy6

    A crackdown on false and misleading advertising is long overdue. I can remember when I was much younger and saw a print ad for a new mascara that Max Factor was launching. I was entranced by the eyelashes on the model in the ad, bought that mascara and did everything and anything to duplicate that look. I then found out that the application of that mascara for that ad took over two hours to achieve. Her eyelashes had been aggressively curled and each lash had been separated with a pin to get the full, fanned effect in between seven coats of mascara. I have no idea what it took to remove it after the shoot had finished. Lesson learned. I never fell for another ad again.

  • Mary

    “I think many of us are logical enough to realize that the false advertising has been used to sell us products for years now in the beauty industry.” Well said, Muse.

    Of course I know it’s only “hope in a jar,” but I do enjoy those beautiful images. It’s the stuff fantasy is made of, so let me dream in peace, ASA!

  • Swoozy

    I would love to not see filtering. I follow one of the vintage makeup ad posters on Instagram and it is shocking how different women looked in pre-1990 photos. I know they could touch up photos back in the day, but between no filters, no/fewer face fillers/botox/boob jobs – everyone looks so real. And it’s nice to see “real” human bodies looking good.

  • genevieve

    I would like to see ‘realness’ rather than filters to show makeup or skincare effects. It’s just false advertising otherwise.

  • miska

    I dig the realness. I think that advertisers have taken things way too far. I feel bad for little ones growing up and seeing all of these airbrushed flawless images constantly in their face and thinking that it’s real life. It’s false advertising! I recently saw an ad for a new mascara in a magazine and the fine print said they “added individual lashes to the model” Yet they advertise that the mascara is what will give you lashes to rival the picture!