
Diesel clothing advert banned for objectifying Katie Price
The ad, which appeared on the Guardian news website on March 26, included an image of Price wearing a bikini and holding a handbag in front of her chest.
The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) received 13 complaints that the ad objectified and sexualised women and featured a model who appeared to be unhealthily thin.
Diesel said the ad was part of a brand campaign called 'The Houseguests', which was designed to challenge stereotypes and support diversity and inclusion in the fashion industry by reflecting a wide range of body types.
It believed the ad was compliant with the advertising rules but said it removed the ad from the Guardian website.
The brand said Price was 46 years old and had a body type that was not usually included in high fashion campaigns, explaining that the average age for editorial models was between 16 and 23.
Diesel believed the image was a 'celebration of Ms Price's sexuality and empowerment and was not objectifying, degrading or sexualising', and 'showed Ms Price clearly in control in an active and dynamic pose where she proudly showed off her body and the handbag'.
Diesel added that Price was 'well-known for her exaggerated appearance and larger-than-life personality and her large lips and breasts formed part of her curated public image', and this 'exaggerated, eccentric and altered appearance' formed part of the creativity of the campaign.
Finally, Diesel said although Price was slender, she had excellent muscle tone and was not unhealthily underweight.
The Guardian said it received a complaint directly about the ad on April 4 and blocked it from appearing again because it did not consider it complied with their policies.
Partly upholding the complaints, the ASA said the bikini only partially covered Price's breasts, and it considered the positioning of the handbag, in front of her stomach with the handle framing her chest, drew viewers' attention to, and emphasised, that part of her body.
The ASA said: 'While we acknowledged that Ms Price was shown in a confident and self-assured pose and in control, we considered that because of the positioning of the handbag, which had the effect of emphasising and drawing attention to her breasts, the ad sexualised her in a way that objectified her.
'We therefore considered the ad was likely to cause serious offence, was irresponsible and breached the Code.'
The ASA did not uphold complaints about Price appearing to be unhealthily thin, and concluded that the ad was not irresponsible on that basis.
The watchdog ruled that the ad must not appear again, adding: 'We told Diesel to ensure their future ads were socially responsible and did not cause serious or widespread offence.'
Diesel said: 'Diesel's latest Houseguests campaign continues its tradition of challenging norms and embracing individuality. A key image features model Katie Price, 46, showcasing a body type rarely seen in high fashion, proving that women of all shapes and ages deserve representation. The photo celebrates confidence and empowerment without objectification.
'Shared in over 100 countries, it has not received any regulatory complaints, highlighting Diesel's commitment to respectful, inclusive storytelling.'

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Metro
15 hours ago
- Metro
Harvey Weinstein found guilty of sexual assault after bombshell retrial
Harvey Weinstein has been found guilty of one charge in his sex crimes retrial, after lengthy proceedings in New York. The disgraced film mogul was initially convicted of a criminal sexual act in the first degree and rape in the third degree, in February 2020. However, his 23-year sentence was overturned last year, sparking a three-week retrial in Manhattan. After a second round of hearings, the 73-year-old was convicted of sexually assaulting Miriam Haley. He was also acquitted of a second charge stemming from sexual assault accusations made by Kaja Sokola, with the jury struggling to reach a unanimous verdict on a third count involving Jessica Mann. According to the Guardian, Judge Curtis Farber encouraged them to continue deliberating in the hopes they can find a verdict. Deadline reports that each count of first-degree criminal sexual act carries a maximum sentence of 25 years. Weinstein's previous conviction for sex crimes in New York was overturned last April by the Court of Appeal, after it was ruled that he didn't receive a fair trial in 2020. In September, he was then indicted on new sexual assault charges – but has denied all accusations against him. Earlier today, Weinstein addressed Judge Farber to plead for a mistrial, but was quickly denied. 'This is my life that's on the line, this is not fair,' the former movie producer said. 'I'm not getting a fair trial.' Although the sentencing hearing has not yet taken place, the conviction will be in addition to a 16-year sentence he is yet to serve in LA. Weinstein has been at the center of rape or sexual misconduct allegations from more than 100 people, with some claims dating back to the 1970s. More Trending The allegations sparked the Me Too movement, which highlighted sexual violence in the film industry, as well as worldwide. He has been behind bars for the last few years, and filed a lawsuit against Rikers Island at the end of 2024, calling out the conditions and services at the prison facility after suffering a number of health problems. In documents obtained by Deadline, his legal team confirmed they were seeking 'no less than $5,000,000', and demanding 'monetary damages arising from negligence, carelessness, recklessness, gross negligence, medical malpractice, intentional and/or reckless and/or negligent deprivation of medical treatment, deprivation of civil and constitutional rights, and negligent and intentional torts' that he claimed have been 'committed by officers, agents, and employees of the New York City Department of Correction'. They also named New York City Health & Hospitals Corporation, Rikers Island Correctional Facility, and New York City Health & Hospitals Corporation/Bellevue.' Got a story? If you've got a celebrity story, video or pictures get in touch with the entertainment team by emailing us celebtips@ calling 020 3615 2145 or by visiting our Submit Stuff page – we'd love to hear from you. MORE: Beach Boys co-founder Brian Wilson dies aged 82 MORE: Brooke Shields podcast episode criticising Meghan Markle quietly removed from platforms MORE: Reality TV legend's husband 'deported from US after being detained for 4 months'


Wales Online
16 hours ago
- Wales Online
Twix advert banned after complaints it promoted dangerous driving
Twix advert banned after complaints it promoted dangerous driving The advert shows a man in a car embarking on a high-speed chase with a pursuer, before swerving off the road and tumbling down a hill Twix TV advert banned after complaints it encouraged dangerous driving (Image: Twix/YouTube ) A TV advert for the popular chocolate bar, Twix, has been banned following objections that it promotes reckless driving. The advert, titled Two is More Than One, showcases a 70s-inspired car chase featuring a long-haired man in a caramel-coloured vehicle navigating through a rugged terrain with winding roads. After noticing another driver tailing him via his rear view mirror, he accelerates before yanking the handbrake, veering off to the right side of the road and rolling sideways through a metal barrier. Despite the dramatic tumble down the hill, the driver remains unfazed as the car comes to a halt, landing on an identical vehicle at the bottom of the hill. The two cars are depicted stacked roof-to-roof, with the same man seemingly occupying both vehicles. For the latest TV and showbiz gossip sign up to our newsletter The Twix bar from the top driver falls through the sunroof into the hands of the driver below, and they both shift the gear stick on the ground level car and drive off. Two cars end up roof to roof, and drive away together. (Image: Twix/YouTube ) The Advertising Standards Agency (ASA) received five complaints alleging that the advert was irresponsible and encouraged dangerous driving, reports the Express. Article continues below Mars-Wrigley, the confectionery giant that owns Twix, defended the advert by stating it "was set in a separate world that was absurd, fantastical and removed from reality," and they ensured that the acts depicted in the sequence "would be impossible to recreate", according to Sky News. The firm, which also owns brands such as Maltesers and M&Ms, stated that the cars "were shot driving at lawful speeds and any emulation would only reflect the legal and safe driving presented". Mars-Wrigley also pointed out that the advert embodied the playful and absurd humour that the Twix brand is renowned for. Clearcast, the non-profit organisation that approves adverts before they are broadcast in the UK, informed the watchdog that the style of the video made it clear to viewers that the actions depicted were not intended to be replicated, and said the ad did not suggest "safe driving was boring," according to BBC News. However, despite acknowledging that the video featured "some clearly fantastical elements," the watchdog decided to uphold the complaints, stating in its ruling that the ads "must not appear again in their current form". "We considered the road was clearly realistic," the ASA stated. "The scenes were depicted as a chase with the emphasis on speed. In addition, the first man was then shown putting the handbrake on and the car swerved off the road leaving visible skid marks. "We considered the emphasis on a chase, and the speed inherent to that, and the driving manoeuvres featured would be dangerous and irresponsible if emulated in real life on a public highway." In its ruling, the ASA instructed Mars-Wrigley "not to condone or encourage irresponsible driving that was likely to breach the legal requirements of the Highway Code in their ads." A spokesperson for Mars Wrigley UK stated: "We always take pride in maintaining high standards across all our communications and every advert we produce is submitted for approval through the appropriate review channels. Article continues below "In our view, this particular advert adopts a fantastical tone that is neither realistic nor intended to be imitated. "Nonetheless, we take our responsibility as an advertiser seriously and never intended to cause any offence or concern, so we are reviewing the ruling carefully in order to work collaboratively towards a resolution."


Scotsman
18 hours ago
- Scotsman
The bizarre reason a Twix advert has been banned from TV
A Twix ad has been banned for 'condoning dangerous driving' 😬 Sign up to the weekly Cost Of Living newsletter. Saving tips, deals and money hacks. Sign up Thank you for signing up! Did you know with a Digital Subscription to Edinburgh News, you can get unlimited access to the website including our premium content, as well as benefiting from fewer ads, loyalty rewards and much more. Learn More Sorry, there seem to be some issues. Please try again later. Submitting... Twix has had an advert banned for 'condoning dangerous driving'. The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) has issued the ruling. But why has the advert been controversial? An advert for the chocolate bar Twix has been banned for 'condoning dangerous driving'. The rule was handed down by the Advertising Standards Authority after multiple complaints were made. The ad - called 'Two is More Than One' - was broadcast on TV and VOD in March of this year, according to the ASA. It depicted a man driving off an empty road and falling down a rocky hill before landing upside down on top of an identical car. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Mars Wrigley, owners of Twix, claimed the advert was 'set in a separate world that was absurd, fantastical and removed from reality'. However it has now been banned. Why has the Twix advert been banned? A television advert for Twix biscuits has been banned by the ASA for promoting "dangerous" and "irresponsible" driving | Twix/YouTube After it was broadcast on TV - and online - the ASA received multiple complaints about it. Viewers felt that it 'encouraged dangerous driving' and was 'irresponsible'. The ASA's findings ruled: 'Because we considered the driving depicted in the ads condoned unsafe driving, that appeared likely to breach the legal requirements of the Highway Code, we concluded the ads were irresponsible.' Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad It did agree that the ad 'contained some clearly fantastical elements' but found that 'the scenes were depicted as a chase with the emphasis on speed'. Responding to the ruling, Mars told ITV News : 'We always take pride in maintaining high standards across all our communications and every advert we produce is submitted for approval through the appropriate review channels. "In our view, this particular advert adopts a fantastical tone that is neither realistic nor intended to be imitated. "Nonetheless, we take our responsibility as an advertiser seriously and never intended to cause any offence or concern, so we are reviewing the ruling carefully in order to work collaboratively towards a resolution." Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Have you got a story you want to share with our readers? You can now send it to us online via YourWorld at . It's free to use and, once checked, your story will appear on our website and, space allowing, in our newspapers.