The ASA banned Calvin Klein's FKA twigs poster, then reversed its own reasoning

In January 2024, a poster from Calvin Klein's 'Calvins or nothing' campaign showed singer FKA twigs in a denim shirt drawn halfway around her body, exposing the side of her buttocks and half of one breast. Two complaints about the campaign reached the ASA. On 10 January 2024 the regulator banned the poster, ruling that its composition 'placed viewers' focus on the model's body rather than on the clothing being advertised' and presented her as 'a stereotypical sexual object' — likely to cause serious offence by objectifying women.

Calvin Klein defended the image, pointing to campaigns it had run in the UK for years and describing twigs as a 'confident and empowered woman' who had collaborated on and approved the picture. FKA twigs responded on Instagram that she did not see the 'stereotypical sexual object' the ASA described, called herself 'a beautiful strong woman of colour', and suggested double standards while the ASA was still reviewing complaints about the campaign's Jeremy Allen White ads. Two Kendall Jenner posters from the same campaign were cleared.

On 6 March 2024 the ASA republished a revised ruling. It now said the image was 'overtly sexual (though not sexually explicit)' but showed twigs as 'confident and in control' — she had not been objectified. The ban survived anyway: an overtly sexual image was 'not suitable for display in an untargeted medium, a poster, where anyone could see it.' The ASA said the revision came from unease about its own wording, not external criticism.

The ASA reversed its finding that FKA twigs was objectified but kept the ban, ruling the overtly sexual image was unsuitable for an untargeted poster medium.

The campaign put its most sexual image in the least controllable medium — a poster that anyone, including children, could see

The ASA's January reasoning treated the three posters inconsistently and leaned on 'objectifying' without a stable test, forcing its own revision

Calvin Klein's defence leaned on brand heritage and the model's consent instead of the placement question that ultimately decided the case

The reversal conceded the model was 'in control' yet still banned the ad — a narrower ground that was harder to argue against

A regulator can change its mind and still keep the ban, on a narrower ground. Plan for the least defensible reading of your own image — placement, not intent, is what sticks.

The revised ruling also restricted the two Kendall Jenner posters: the second was 'sexually suggestive' and could not run within 100 metres of schools. The ASA's blog post stressed that 'the race or identity of the women was not relevant to and did not form part of our rulings'. The case became a reference point for how the ASA treats sexualised advertising in untargeted media: the objectification ground fell, the placement principle survived.