Lord Sugar teeth whitening tweet banned by advertising watchdogs for being misleading
ASA says the tweet was ‘not obviously identifiable as a marketing communication’
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.Lord Alan Sugar has come under fire for promoting a teeth whitening kit on Twitter without clarifying that it was an advert.
In December, the Apprentice host tweeted about a product from the brand Stylsmile and described it as a “perfect Xmas gift”.
“If you know someone who’s longing for whiter teeth, this is the perfect Xmas gift for them,” wrote Lord Sugar, 73.
The TV star and entrepreneur also posted a link to the product’s website.
But a complaint was quickly raised by someone who questioned why Lord Sugar had not indicated that the tweet was an advertisement with a hashtag such as #spon or #ad.
In response, Lord Sugar argued that it was an obvious promotion given that Stylsmile is run by a former Apprentice winner, Tom Pellereau, and Lord Sugar is known to post about businesses he is involved with on Twitter.
But the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) ruled that the tweet still breached its rules given that it was not explicitly clarified that it was an advertisement.
They explained that the tweet ”was not obviously identifiable as a marketing communication”.
“We understood that Lord Sugar tweeted about brands he had both a commercial interest in and those he did not.
“We considered that although Lord Sugar was a well-known investor, it was not immediately clear to all consumers that he had a commercial interest in Stylsmile UK from the tweet itself.
“We therefore concluded that the commercial intent behind the tweet was not made clear upfront and it was not obviously identifiable as a marketing communication,” the organisation said.
“We told Stylideas Ltd t/a Stylsmile UK and Lord Sugar to ensure that they made clear the commercial intent of their posts in future, for example by including a clear and prominent identifier on their social media posts such as #ad,” the ASA added.
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments