On 25 March 2026, the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) upheld 22 complaints concerning a paid-for Meta ad for a robot-dog toy sold by UAB CommerceCore (WiggyDog) – for clarity, not marketed by a law firm with a similar name!

The ad featured a white and brown robotic dog in a series of highly lifelike scenarios – wagging its tail, walking around and moving its head – accompanied by voiceover claims including: “This robotic puppy looks so real it completely fooled my neighbour who is a veterinarian”, that it “sits on command, barks when you talk to him, walks around the house […] exactly like a real puppy”, that “this isn’t just some stuffed animal”, and that “it’s like having a real puppy”. The ad also claimed: “Three neighbours have already asked where we adopted him from, that’s how realistic he looks […].”

The ASA found that the footage – which appeared to be of real and/or AI-generated puppies – combined with those claims, was likely to give consumers the impression that the product itself looked and behaved like a real dog. Crucially, the ASA noted that WiggyDog had provided no evidence that the toy’s actual appearance and functionality matched the claims that the toy was highly realistic and looked and behaved like a real dog. On that basis, it concluded that the ad was misleading because it exaggerated the product’s performance and characteristics.

The ruling held that the ad must not appear again in that form. WiggyDog told the ASA it was reviewing its internal compliance procedures to ensure future marketing communications comply with the CAP Code.

At its core, the ruling restates a fundamental CAP Code rule (taken from our consumer protection legislation), that ads must not mislead or be likely to do so. As an extension of this principle, if an ad makes a claim about a functionality (or creates that impression through imagery/voiceover) the claim and/or overall impression must be capable of substantiation at the time it is made and ads must not mislead by exaggerating the performance qualities of a product.

That is particularly important in the context of AI-generated or enhanced advertising. The use of AI to exaggerate product performance has long been on the regulator’s radar and this ruling clarifies that the growing accessibility of these tools does not dilute the usual rules on misleadingness, substantiation or exaggeration. If anything, it heightens the risk, making it easier than ever to create polished, persuasive depictions of products that may go well beyond their objective reality – particularly where a product is shown moving, responding or performing in a way that appears lifelike.

Existing CAP guidance already flags the need to consider whether consumers are likely to be misled if AI use is not disclosed (discussed here), and whether any disclosure genuinely clarifies (rather than contradicts) the overall message. WiggyDog ruling underlines that point: even where footage is labelled as AI‑generated or enhanced, a disclaimer will not rescue the ad if the actual product does not look or behave as depicted. The question is not whether AI was used, but whether the ad, viewed as a whole, leaves a misleading impression.

1. Substantiate the overall impression: If visuals, voiceover and context together give consumers the impression that a product performs in a particular way, advertisers should be able to evidence that overall impression.
2. Be cautious of adopting AI-generated or heavily enhanced visuals: Where content includes stylised, edited or AI-generated or enhanced footage, advertisers should assess whether it materially overstates the product’s real-world appearance, functionality or quality.
3. Disclosures need to clarify, not contradict: Qualifying information (i.e. “Ad contains AI-generated content”) must be clear, prominent and proximate to the relevant claim – and even then, it cannot reverse a misleading overall impression created by the ad itself.
4. Avoid absolute claims unless they can be evidenced: Phrases such as “exactly like a real puppy”, “looks so real” or “it’s like having a real puppy” are likely to be treated as objective or performance-based claims where consumers would take them seriously. Those claims need careful scrutiny before publication.

WiggyDog ruling goes beyond being a ruling about robotic dogs: it is really about the widening gap between what modern advertising can depict and what the underlying product can actually deliver.

As AI-generated and enhanced advertising becomes more commonplace, advertisers should expect continued scrutiny where realistic or performance qualities are central to the creative messaging of their ad.