The Advertising Standards Authority has upheld rulings against ProCook, SportsShoes.com, Grind and Who Gives A Crap over “carbon neutral” delivery claims in their paid search and social ads. The rulings form part of a wider piece of work on ads making carbon neutral delivery or similar claims.

The ads were all seen in June. ProCook’s Google search ad read “Next Day Delivery Available – Carbon Neutral Delivery”, SportsShoes.com’s promised “Carbon Neutral Deliveries” and Grind’s offered “Carbon Positive Delivery”. 

Who Gives A Crap ran its claim on Meta, with “Carbon neutral shipping” in the caption of a video ad.

Each ruling followed a single complaint. All four ads were also picked up by the ASA’s own intelligence and its Active Ad Monitoring system, which uses AI to proactively search for online ads that might break the rules.

In every case, the ASA agreed that shoppers would read the claims as being about delivery only, not the full life cycle of the products.

Where the retailers fell down was in not saying whether the claim relied on carbon offsetting, on cutting emissions, or on both. The ASA said this information was needed for consumers to understand the claim.

Limited ad space wasn’t accepted as an excuse. The regulator said the 270-character limit on search ads was not so restrictive that the basis of the claim couldn’t be stated, and it found the Meta ad had enough room too.

None of the landing pages explained the claims either. SportsShoes.com said its landing page varied and the page explaining the claim had been deleted.

SportsShoes.com said it measured and offset emissions from deliveries between its warehouse and customers, and had funded a carbon sequestration project. From now on, its environmental ads will be checked by a consultancy before they go live.

ProCook said the ad came from a legacy campaign and had been withdrawn. A third-party delivery firm had cut emissions and offset the rest, and ProCook is auditing its old ads for similar claims.

Grind offsets its estimated delivery emissions by funding a carbon removal scheme through a third party. It switched from “carbon positive” to “carbon neutral” wording more than a year ago, but missed the search ad in a later review.

Who Gives A Crap said its claim covered all transport from its manufacturing site to the customer’s door, offset with verified carbon credits plus a 10% buffer. It had stopped running the ad by July and added a homepage link explaining the claim. The ASA welcomed the change but said it didn’t alter the outcome. 

All four ads breached CAP Code rules 3.1 and 3.3 on misleading advertising and 11.1 on environmental claims. They can’t run again in the same form, and each retailer has been told to make clear how far its environmental claims rely on offsetting.

The rulings follow CAP guidance telling advertisers to avoid unqualified carbon neutral and net zero claims. Its research found people tended to believe carbon neutral claims implied an absolute reduction in emissions had taken place or would take place.

While the ASA can’t fine advertisers, the Competition and Markets Authority can. The Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act has given the CMA direct powers to determine consumer law breaches since April 2025. It can impose fines of up to £300,000 or 10% of global turnover, whichever is higher, without going to court.

The CMA has confirmed that misleading green claims continue to be a focus area for enforcement under the new regime.

In January, it published guidance on green claims across the supply chain. The guidance places the onus squarely on any business making or repeating a claim to ensure it is not misleading, even where the evidence sits with a supplier.

The EU has gone further. Since 27th September 2026, claims that a product has a neutral, reduced or positive climate impact based on offsetting have been prohibited under the Empowering Consumers for the Green Transition Directive. That applies regardless of how transparently the offsetting is explained.