Julia Roberts photo banned in the UK
By Alexandra Heilbron on July 28, 2011 | 52 Comments
A Lancôme print ad featuring Julia Roberts has been banned in Britain after MP Jo Swinson filed a complaint with U.K.’s Advertising Standards Authority, calling it “misleading” because “the flawless skin in the image was the result of digital manipulation, not the product.” The ASA upheld Swinson’s complaint, stating the ad was “not representative of the results the products could achieve” because it had been airbrushed. The ad was found to have breached advertising standards codes 3.1 (Misleading advertising) and 3.11 (Exaggeration). Lancôme admitted the image had been altered using “a soft focus and lower resolution,” but stated in their defense that Julia, 43, is famous for her “naturally healthy and glowing skin.” The ASA requested a copy of the original photo in order to compare it to the one in the ad, but they were denied, as Roberts has a clause in her contract that doesn’t allow the release of untouched photos. The ASA ruled: “On the basis of the evidence we had received, we could not conclude that the ad image accurately illustrated what effect the product could achieve, and that the image had not been exaggerated by digital post-production techniques. We therefore concluded the ad was misleading.”
Comments & Discussion
Similar Articles
Matthew Perry’s strange revelations in new autobiography
October 26, 2022 | 9 Comments
Matthew Perry’s autobiography, ‘Friends, Lovers, and the Big Terrible Thing,’ releases November 1 and several leaked excerpts have already received backlash.
Julia Roberts, George Clooney provide a “Ticket to Paradise”
October 21, 2022 | Leave a Comment
Ticket to Ride is the long-awaited comedy pairing of George Clooney and Julia Roberts and it’s everything fans have waited for. Click to read our review.
New on DVD – Creed II, The Favourite and more!
March 5, 2019 | 2 Comments
Six new films release on Blu-ray and DVD today, including Creed II starring Michael B. Jordan, Instant Family starring Mark Wahlberg and two Oscar winners.
They should ban this kind of thing over here, too and maybe then women wouldn’t spend ridiculous amounts of money trying to look younger or to be thinner.
This is silly — most, if not all, beauty ads are misleading in some way, including airbrushing, false eyelashes, oiled hair, etc. (some have disclaimers in fine-print disclaimers at the bottom). The Cannes-winning video “Evolution” (from Dove’s Campaign for Real Beauty) illustrates this concept beautifully.
All this says to me is that they don’t think Julia has as nice a skin in real life than she does on a picture.
I always thought all models, actors and actresses on some degree were air brushed for photo opps. All and all Julia Roberts is still a beautiful woman and would sell a product with or without make-up retouching.
Agree Karyn, I think lots of people would still buy a product sold by the ‘natural’ Julia Roberts
Good! I think there should be harsher laws enforcing truth in advertising! We the consumer are lied and manipulated constantly, and most of us work hard for our money. As much as I like Julia as an actress, she is paid millions of dollars to sell what she is aware to be a lie, since she has it in her contract that untouched photos of her should not be released!
16 year old models are used in adds for wrinkle cream, 35 year olds sell gray covering hair color, labels of �green��, and �safe for the environment�� are slapped on products and the price goes up, but if you read the labels you realize that the ingredients are identical with the original product, and there is no law against that, no monitoring of it! We are milked each and every way, and it��s high time we should say �enough��.
” stated in their defense that Julia, 43, is famous for her �naturally healthy and glowing skin.��”
And there was me thinking she was famous for being an actor, go figure!
There should be a penalty, and it’s about time, for this sort of un-truth in advertising. This should be leveled on the ad agency as well as the client and media that approved this copy campaign.
All ads show only top models or celebrities, never women you would see in public.
It’s about time we demanded more companies and advertisers to get real… this is a great move… If she used the product that would be great to show her natural beauty but so many of these celebraties endorse products they don’t even use…
Here’s hoping to see more reality checks like this one.
Jules
I agree that this is a good move and I wish this happened more often in North America. Having completely airbrushed false photos only gives our young girls unrealistic expectations and sets the bar way too high for what is considered ‘normal’ in terms of skin and blemishes etc.
Wait a sec. This is wrong. The advertisement was banned due to “exaggeration” but that was not proven. The only admission was using “soft focus and low resolution.” Does that fit the evidentiary test for “exaggeration”? I doubt it. It seem this ad was banned because the advertisers could not disprove airbrishing of the ad. That is because they would be breaching their contract with the model (Ms. Roberts) by releasing the original negatives.
So, instead of the government having to prove an allegation, the advertisers have to disprove something just because someone “thinks” the photo may be airbrushed, with no further proof. This is a revers onus and it is wrong. The advertiser should appeal.
Magazines also do this… is sad.
Yes! So sick and tired off all the false advertising. Wish something would be done here in North America where it is the worst. Ads for mascara where the model is wearing fake eyelashes! Food that looks nothing like the real thing in ads on packaging.
It doesn’t matter if our conscious mind registers the deceipt our subconscious still reacts and ultimately rules our behaviour. We know that hamburger will not look anything like it does in the ad or taste as good as is implied but we buy it anyway. Google “subconscious response to advertising” and you will see just how precisely we are manipulated by advertising.
I don’t care if it is air-brushed or not! She is still stunningly beautiful, and I would love a date with her if she ever came to Montreal!!!!
@Jules Roberts on July 28, 2011 4:02 PM
If you re-read the article, you will see that they could not release the pictures because Julia’s contract states that they cannot release any photos that have not been retouched … therefore, the fact that they could show the originals means that the originals were not touched up … the fact that the photos were used in an ad, by using the same logic means that the ones used in the ad WERE touched up (otherwise, they would have breached the contract)
oops … I meant to say ….therefore, the fact that they could NOT show the originals means that the originals were not touched up
anyone who beleives a simple foundation can make them “look” like Julia Roberts deserves to have their money taken from them. Buyer beware…a fool and his money and all that! ANyone shocked at a celebrity being retouched is out of touch!
Well, I like to think that most women are intelligent enough to know that celebrity advertisement photos are airbrushed. For once though, I’d like to see the ‘real thing’. Then more ‘real women’ might be interested in trying the product.
How ridiculous!Have you seen Julia Roberts in real life? She is beautiful! Who cares if the ad is touched up a bit! Are you kidding me? Do you honestly think this is the first actor who has had her photo touched up? Come out from underneath your rock!
I think that pic of Ms Roberts looks terrible she looks plastic like a doll not a real person who has a face that is line free at her age No amount of creams serums etc on this planet is able to give you a look like hers in that pic
@ Marie: as the article stated
“Lancôme admitted the image had been altered using �a soft focus and lower resolution,��”.
This is far different than the conclusion that the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) mande in banning the ad that “the ad was �not representative of the results the products could achieve�� because it had been airbrushed.”
No airbrushing was admitted or proved. I still think the ASA ruling should be appealed.
If they needed to airbrush her picture, that tells me the product isn’t doing it’s job… so why would I buy it?
I wouldn’t mind if airbrushing was banned from all beauty product advertisements.
Everyone knows that airbrushing is everywhere, but it’s still misleading. Plus, people sometimes have wishfull thinking of attaining that level of fake beauty. I know I do sometimes and it makes me sad.
Honestly people! Those who feel that touch ups are not being done, need to really to a look in the mirror! All mags, models, movies, set shots, they all have touch ups and that’s what sells magazines.
There is nothing wrong with a little here, a little there! After all, who says it can’t produce that outcome?
Seriously, do we all believe that following those little diet pills, drinking green tea, fat burner powder, P90X, etc will give those results. In many (and most) cases, it will not but it will for some!
But then again, there are those who think eating McDonald’s 3 times a day is a healthy lifestyle! Go figure, people need to just use rational decision making processes when viewing what is before their eyes!
She’s gorgeous, she sells magazines, books, movies, etc and I could tell it was here immediately! skin and all!
KJ
I like Julia Roberts as an actress and I’m sure she’s a nice lady but I have to applaud Jo Swinson for stepping up as not many have about false advertisements. I am a 37 year old Frenchwoman and I don’t have any wrinkles yet because I take good care of my skin, however, I AM at the age where my skin is changing as well. Not one of us is flawless. Look at those “age defying” skin cream commercials advertising younger acting skin. Look at the commercials on TV. they are using YOUNG girls who don’t have skin problems yet. How is that showing results? I think most of them ARE misleading.
Why aren’t they showing her teint, it’s says teint miracle, I would love to see julia’s teint!
Why jump all over Julia?? Geez, glamour has always been over rated and most magazines and cosmetic companies have air brushed their models since Moses was a baby. Suddenly Julia Roberts is the epitome of all things fake & distorted. What about Valerie Bertinelli on TV commercials blowing her horn about Cindy Crawford looking more than 20 years younger with Dr. So & So’s magic melon face muck? Are they evil too?
I realize and agree with the theme that women need to be happy with themselves and the way they normally look, but truly, there’s nothing wrong with trying to pretty yourself and quite honestly, I’m getting very tired of the government making more and more laws and rules to protect all the gullible idiots in the world from themselves.
Soon we’ll be evolved with no brain attachment, because we no longer need to use the one we have with governments dictating our every thought and move, since they don’t believe we’re capable of deciding what really is or isn’t for ourselves. Phuh!!
this actually says that she does not have nice skin or look that great untouched because she has a clause in her contract that says no photos are to be released untouched.
Yipee! Good for Britain – now if Canada would do the
same, more women wouldn’t spend money foolishly………..
Perhaps if you ban everything that is fake, then people will look the way they are supposed to look. Baggy eyes, bad skin, freckles/zits etc.
Honestly people,anyone with a brain in their head can make rational decisions about what they are going to buy with their money regardless of what an ad asks them to believe!.What people should be focusing on, is doesn’t the MP have better things to do with her time then complain about beauty ads.Really come on ,she’s a public servant with a salary paid for by the public.Hello anyone else see a real issue here?
Lady Mills made me picture a basset hound lol.
Jane made several good points, and I think this ban should start extending to other product areas as well.
Those Loreal adverts in Canada drive me nuts – especially the dark circle cover up one. If they really want to prove it works they should be putting me in the advert – then we will see. I am an ex-Brit – I applaud what the MP has done. People are totally influenced by advertising – these companies should start getting real.
I come from England, and in England; specifically because of these laws, people have full confidence when buying products. If the product doesnt deliver what it promises, you can get a refund. Now I live in Canada and I only wish that Canadian and American consumers had the same laws protecting their rights. People get duped here shamelessly, and the consumers rights here are decidedly lacking. The government are clearly backing only commerce, which I find wholey wrong!
You know I am 54, go in the sun all the time and use only a 10 SPF sunscreen, yet I have few wrinkles! I use and oil control cream during the day, 10 bucks, wash my face with an cleansing wash, ten bucks, and paraben free Touch of Carrot eye cream and Jamieson vitamin A paraben free night cream, 14.99. Despite being 54 most guess me around 40. If women choose to use expensive creams, more power to them. We all see Julia Roberts in movies and on tv. She looks great for her age! If there is some airbrushing, so what? Who cares?
Congrats to Swinson for the complaint! I hate all the manipulation advertisers use. I wish we would ban air brushing here in Canada. All it does is twist what is natural beauty to young girls and does not encourage self acceptance and deeper beauty. And it tells women that cannot age beautifully, which they can, so show it show the wrinkles of life for real!
BRITISH TAX DOLLARS AT WORK?? JULIA YOU ARE BEAUTIFUL. RELEASE AN UNTOUCHED PHOTO AND I WILL BUY WHATEVER YOU ARE SELLING REGARDLESS.
GOOD. Most of these products do not work anyhow and most are not good for your skins health. And Mike…..what exactly would you buy from a female product line….
Nobody’s skin is flawless, all the actors/actresses/models have the same skin we do, they were not born priviledged. They have more money to take care of themselves, with massages, facials, and other things that us “normal” people do not have access to but they are still the same as you and us. They do need to stop misleading the public that if you buy this product (and Lancome is very expensive) you will look like here. That is not how she looks when she wakes up in the morning and that product will not make you look like that when you wake up in the morning either. People need reality checks, taking care of yourself, using soaps, water and eating properly and exercising is what is going to keep us young on the inside.
Seems to me I have heard this complaint before. I am pretty sure it was a model that said the picture had been airbrushed etc. for the product and she wasn’t happy with it. It’s not like people don’t know this..it’s been going on forever. As most products that are advertised always feature a young model (not in this case but still)…and alot of those products are for older women.
As for Julia’s naturally healthy and glowing skin, well good for her. But if that’s true then why can’t people see her untouched photo’s.
What’s the worse thing that can happen. She proofs she looks just like the rest of us with out makeup….
This is ridiculous! Every single picture in ads and mags is air-brushed!
“digital manipulation” uh..you think?
wow her face doesn’t even look real..she looks like a completely CGI creations..
I mean what the hell? I would have to say the pictures I’ve seen of the new Lara Croft
look more like a real person then that picture Julia Roberts.
I think this is a good start…. we don’t need women/young girls and now men as well thinking they are less than. I believe having the make up artists etc. should be enough… NO MORE AIRBRUSHING or shaving inches….. enough already!
Show me a cosmetic advert that has not been touched up or a model used that is so young she hasnt had a chance to get blemishes… all advertising is the same way…. its about time we were given adverts with REAL results not photoshopped
The truth is that there are people of all intellectual levels in the world; everyone has the right to be protected from lies; those who feel that those of lesser intelligence deserve to have their money taken from them probably don’t have someone in their family with a severe learning disability, otherwise they would want to ensure that their family members are not swindled.
What is obvious to you is not obvious to everyone, and it is unfair to throw these people to the wolves. We are all one knock on the head away from a brain injury that could impair our thinking … would you really want to be taken advantage of if it happens to you or to one of your kids?
Laws are in place to help everyone … if they don’t help you because you are too smart to be swindled, then congratulations … let’s keep the con artists from taking advantage of those who are easy targets….
It’s about time some one with a little power and is concerned about misleading. We should know by now that everything involving females,males, possibly animals has been airbrushed for advertising purposes. We can alter our own pictures with a camera or on a program on the net. This seems to say the product will make you look beauiful.
REAl people do not sell advertisement. It would be nice to see Julia or any other person with out air brushing. Let’s go O’natural.
The UK should ban all movies from their country too then, as the amount of makeup on all the actor’s faces is very misleading as well. But……after all, that’s showbiz isn’t it. No more TV for them, no more theatre, no more stage plays. It all might be too deceiving. This isn’t all just subject to the realm of magazine and poster land.
BTW….while they were at the airbrushing, they forgot to brush away that wart right under her right eye..
stated in their defense that Julia, 43, is famous for her �naturally healthy and glowing skin.��
Funny that in their defense they didn’t also credit the product for the state of her skin. Could it be that she hasn’t used it to maintain her �naturally healthy and glowing skin.��??? Wake up people. Good for Britain!!!
I saw the untouched photo of Julia on “The View”. She looked nothing like the “plastic” ad. I’m the last person to believe that a product does what it claims. I am 51, I look 30, and am in great shape and have a balanced body, with my weight of 115 lbs., and I am 5′ 5″. I like to “own” my wrinkles, and only watch my weight, and do not buy anything to try to look younger. I know false advertising is common, but I am happy to know that this is not acceptable in all cases. The fact that Julia has stated in her contract that no photo can be released without being retouched, is concerning to me. I know that if the ad did not stand out and look like the product was “working”, then less consumers would buy, but we are always lied to, and I am glad that a few steps have been taken to relieve this. But… I guess nothing would be sold. Whatever! I just have to try to be informed. Even when there are tests done, I know that it can find a different finding later on, so hopefully the consumer will take everything with a “grain of salt”. Also, a higher price does not mean a better product, as we have known for years. But, sometimes we just like the label. When the men have said that they do not care what the lady is selling, but that because they like her would buy it, does not make any sense. Use your upper head, although the brain does not work the same as a woman’s. No bashing here, but the point of the article was not about what the men thought of Julia, but the fact about the retouching. Let’s go, standards!
First, why is Julia Roberts advertising for cosmetics anyway, doesn’t she have enough money? And secondly, if the cosmetic company needs a famous and attractive person like Julia to sell it’s products, then I say beware of the products!!!