Back to the archive

The encyclopedia · Advertising & PR · Marketing decision · 2026

Protein Com's bikini self-tanning ad ruled gender-discriminatory

A breast close-up in a small bikini, no face, sold Protein Com's tanning capsules — RO ruled the cropped, sexualised execution went too far.

Protein Com AB · 2026-06-30

What happened

Protein Com AB ran a Facebook ad for its self-tanning capsules 'Brun Utan Sol' ('sun-kissed naturally'), showing a woman's chest and breasts in a small bikini top that did not fully cover them, with a white tan line at the edge and wet hair on her shoulders. The image was cropped so her face was not visible.

A complainant said the ad was gender-discriminatory and objectifying because it focused on a girl's bikini-clad breasts and tan lines.

Protein Com argued the aim was to illustrate tan lines, which connected directly to the product, but conceded the cropping — no face, prominent upper body — could be perceived as objectifying, apologised, and pulled the ad.

The Reklamombudsmannen ruled the depiction was sexualised through clothing and pose, and that the small bikini top combined with the cropping went beyond what was justified to market a tanning product. The ad was held to breach Article 2 of the ICC Code on human dignity and gender discrimination.

Why it happened

  • The crop cut the face and framed the upper body as the whole point, sexualising where the product needed only a tan line
  • Showing skin has a purpose in a tanning ad, but the bikini top and framing pushed it past the justification
  • The apology and removal came only after the ad had already run and drawn the complaint
What it costRuling: ad gender-discriminatory; removedembarrassing

The lesson

A tan claim only needs skin tone. When the execution crops the face and frames the body, the regulator reads objectification — and the apology arrives after the ruling.

Aftermath

Reklamombudsmannen found the ad gender-discriminatory and degrading to women under Article 2 of the ICC Code. Protein Com had already removed the ad and tightened its internal image-selection routines, but the post-hoc correction did not excuse the violation.

Sources

spotted an error? The club wants to know.

Comments · 0

    Sign in to join the comments.

    More like this

    Somewhere, someone solved the problem this company failed at. 2nd Opinion →