An advert for a porcelain doll promising an "authentic likeness" of the Duke of Cambridge on his wedding day has been ruled misleading after a customer complained that the pictures did not match the product.
A brochure for Bradford Exchange Ltd included a picture of the doll and described it as "handcrafted to an unprecedented level - The world's finest artisans have created an authentic likeness of the handsome Prince on his wedding day".
It went on: "Prince William's dashing red tunic features a golden collar bearing the facing shamrock emblems of the Irish Guards, shining gold buttons and epaulets, white piping and embellished cuffs."
But one buyer complained that the the ad did not accurately represent the doll.
Bradford Exchange, trading as The Ashton-Drake Galleries, said it sold a large number of the dolls and received no other similar complaints.
Responding to a part of the customer's complaint relating to the uniform's cuffs, the retailer said these were an important feature of the doll and should therefore be prominent.
But the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA), which asked for its own sample of the doll, upheld the complaint after comparing it to the images in the brochure.
"We understood that the complainant had been particularly disappointed with the scale of the cuffs on the jacket and noted that these did appear to be slightly larger than those displayed in the image. We also noted that, although the limbs were posable, it was nevertheless difficult to place the doll's arms close to its sides in the manner shown in the ad," it said.
"In addition, we considered that the face of the doll differed from that advertised in being slimmer and painted in a more vibrant, and less realistic, way. The hairline also appeared to be more bluntly defined, and the doll's hair was in some parts much longer than the close-cropped style shown in the ad.
"Because we considered that there were significant differences between the doll and the image in the ad and because we understood that the two were intended to match, we concluded that the ad was not an accurate representation of the product and breached the code."
The ad must not appear again in its current form, it ruled.