The recent wave of Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) bans targeting ads featuring “unhealthily thin” models — including campaigns by Zara, M&S, and Next — shines a spotlight on one of fashion’s toughest challenges: balancing the promotion of healthy body standards without erasing the diversity of real bodies.

For instance, Zara’s recently banned ads included images where clothing choice, poses, and lighting accentuated models’ collarbones and thin legs, creating an impression deemed unhealthy.

M&S’s banned online advert featured a model whose slim frame was emphasised by her pose, clothing, and camera angle. While Next’s online campaign for “power stretch denim leggings” saw a digitally altered model with elongated leggings posed and shot in ways that accentuated slimness to an unrealistic degree.

Of course, no brand wants to glorify genuinely harmful or unhealthy images. But for many women, being naturally very slim is simply who they are. Imagine spotting an ad you relate to, only to find it banned because regulators deemed the model “too thin”.

Unsurprisingly, retailers caught in this crossfire are quick to defend their practices.

In response to the ASA ruling, a Zara UK spokesperson said the brand “noted the decision following an individual complaint regarding two images on our website, which we removed when the ASA made us aware.” They emphasised Zara’s commitment to responsible content, adhering to stringent guidelines for selecting and photographing models.

The spokesperson also highlighted the Spanish fashion giant’s adherence to recommendations from the UK Model Health Inquiry, including requiring medical certificates attesting to models’ good health. They also noted the contested images were only on Zara’s website, not external advertising.

Yet the ASA says it applies a high bar before taking action. Last year, it received 61 complaints about models’ weight but investigated just eight.

In 2025, the regulator said it was typically fielding five or six such complaints a week — but after the M&S ruling in July, that jumped to more than 20 in two weeks. The numbers may still be small, but the sharp rise signals growing public concern.

This debate doesn’t exist in a vacuum. The surge in ultra-slim imagery coincides with broader cultural trends, including increased visibility of rapid weight loss methods and the revival of ‘90s silhouettes — think low-rise jeans and strappy slip tops — which are often shown on very slim models, whether or not that’s intentional.

Such messaging can be confusing and alienating, a jarring contradiction in a world demanding greater inclusivity.

Fashion marketing today is stuck in a lose-lose scenario. Retailers must champion body positivity across not only size but also age, ethnicity, height, and accessibility — dimensions unimaginable to represent authentically just a decade ago.

Subscribe to Marketing Beat for free

Sign up here to get the latest agency-related news sent straight to your inbox each morning

In the 90s, the “heroin chic” trend glorified extreme thinness, a far cry from the industry norms and expectations we see today.

Asos, for example, stands out by featuring models with hearing aids and colostomy bags.

But some question whether these moves verge on performative inclusivity, marketing optics rather than lived reality.

We’ve seen this struggle play out with big names like Victoria’s Secret, whose narrow beauty ideals caused backlash and eventual rebranding. Yet critics still question whether such shifts are genuine or merely attempts to stay relevant.

Meanwhile, the ASA’s increased scrutiny feels unbalanced to some. Reader comments highlight frustration that “unhealthily fat” representations seem less policed, leaving one end of the spectrum disproportionately targeted.

For some readers, it may seem that larger bodies attract less regulatory attention, but this can be framed more constructively as a regulatory blind spot rather than bias.

The complexities deepen further when you consider camera angles, lighting, styling, and retouching, all factors that can unintentionally tip an ad from celebration to controversy.

The truth is, representing the beautiful messiness of real bodies within commercial constraints is an evolving, imperfect art. Retailers and regulators alike are navigating shifting cultural expectations, trying to protect consumers without alienating them.

Just as retailers who strip back flexible working risk losing trust and morale, fashion brands treating inclusivity as a box-ticking exercise risk losing credibility.

At the same time, the ASA’s bans risk side-lining real women whose bodies don’t fit neat definitions of health or diversity.

The challenge is clear: balancing responsible representation without erasing authentic body diversity is a dual responsibility. Brands must show authentic diversity without promoting harmful ideals, and the ASA must protect consumers without over-policing natural body types.

Yet in this evolving landscape, honest dialogue and nuance — not blanket bans or superficial marketing — offer the best path forward for fashion to truly reflect the messy reality of real bodies.