Singapore's Advertising Standards Authority has confirmed that consumer complaints about misleading AI-generated ads are climbing, in comments reported by Marketing-Interactive. The body, formally known as ASAS, processes complaints under Singapore's Code of Advertising Practice across paid media and social channels.

The trend surfaced in the watchdog's review of incoming casework. ASAS has not published specific complaint counts in the available reporting, but the body signalled that generative-AI creative now drives a meaningful share of disputes.

What does ASAS cover?

ASAS is the self-regulatory arm of Singapore's advertising industry. It handles disputes over claims, imagery, and endorsements across paid media, including programmatic display, paid social, and influencer placements. Its remit also extends to digital and social channels — which is where most synthetic-media complaints now land.

The body's code requires advertisers to substantiate objective claims and avoid misleading presentations. Breaches can trigger mandatory amendments, withdrawal, or public listing of non-compliant creative.

What's triggering the AI complaints?

Generative-AI tools entered mainstream marketing after ChatGPT's release in November 2022. By late 2024, advertisers routinely ship AI-generated influencer posts, voice-cloned testimonial audio, and synthetic brand spokespeople in paid placements. Most ASAS disputes in this category revolve around three patterns:

• Implied real-person endorsements where the face or voice was synthesized
• Manipulated before-and-after imagery for cosmetics and health products
• AI-produced expert claims ("Doctors agree…") tied to fabricated or unlicensed spokespeople

The deception claim typically hinges on consumer confusion: viewers cannot distinguish synthetic media from real footage at scale.

How does ASAS handle cases?

The authority reviews formal complaints against its code and can require advertisers to amend, withdraw, or re-cut creative. Public findings get listed on ASAS's website, and repeat breaches carry escalation risk, including potential referral to the national regulator for statutory action in serious cases.

Singapore's code also requires advertisers to substantiate objective claims — a requirement that becomes harder when the underlying asset was generated by a model rather than captured on set.

What should advertisers do operationally?

Trade-side practitioners point to four concrete practices:

1. Disclose synthetic media prominently when it stands in for a real testimonial
2. Retain prompt logs and source files to substantiate any visual or audio claim
3. Vet influencer content for hidden AI generation before paying placements
4. Brief media buyers on local disclosure rules before any paid run

The point: ASAS will treat a synthesized doctor the same as a paid real doctor. The substantiation obligation does not change.

What's the regional picture?

The Singapore signal lines up with regulator behaviour elsewhere. The UK's Advertising Standards Authority has ruled on AI-generated creative several times since 2023, mostly over undisclosed synthetic content in paid placements. The EU's AI Act, which began staggered application from August 2024, requires labelling of synthetic content and disclosure of AI interaction in defined categories.

Advertisers operating across Asia and Europe now juggle overlapping disclosure layers on top of national advertising codes, with no single harmonised rule yet in place.

Bottom line

ASAS has put the industry on notice: synthetic creative carries the same substantiation burden as any other ad. Expect more published rulings through 2025 as complaint volume climbs. Marketers sourcing AI assets should treat the workflow as documentary — log the prompt, retain the output, and disclose when the asset stands in for a real person.