Home / People / Faces by Grace

Wiki scorecard

Faces by Grace

Creator and influencer-compliance reserve tracked through current creator routing, agency/profile surfaces, ambassador records, and multiple Advertising Standards decisions.

LaneSub bench Public statusReserve Receipts12 Last checked2026-05-26 Current heatwarm Riskmedium
Public-record lane. The compliance lane is now backed by four direct adstandards pages plus early profile chronology, but it still needs a fresher public business or compliance hook for promotion.

Basics

Creator and influencer-compliance reserve tracked through current creator routing, agency/profile surfaces, ambassador records, and multiple Advertising Standards decisions.

Boundary: Keep to public-facing influencing, ad-disclosure/compliance, agency/platform mapping, and attributable ambassador roles.

Details

  • A current public link hub is live for @facesbygrace_. The page describes the account as a fashion and beauty content creator. It publicly routes to Instagram and TikTok and labels the profile Grace Mongey Gernon. [1]
  • Matchstick currently lists Grace Mongey on its public client page. The listing gives a current agency/public-facing representation anchor. [2]
  • Extra reported on 30 August 2018 that an ASAI complaint about a Faces by Grace Instagram post was upheld. The report says the issue concerned failure to disclose a working relationship with Boots Ireland on the post. The page attributes the framing to the ASAI complaints bulletin and says this was the second blogger/brand case pulled up by ASAI. [3]
  • A second Irish outlet maintained parallel coverage of the same 30 August 2018 upheld complaint. The page metadata frames the complaint as involving Grace Mongey and says the blogger apologised for confusion caused. [4]
  • St Patrick's 2022 annual report says WIMS Ambassador 2022/2023 Grace Mongey Gernon. The report says she was appointed in September 2022 as a digital content creator and mental-health advocate. [5]
  • The Irish Times profiled Grace Mongey Gernon on 21 September 2024 as a full-time content creator across beauty, lifestyle, and fashion. The piece says she started a Facebook page and YouTube channel in 2011, then expanded via Snapchat after returning to Dublin and doing a make-up course. The article gives a current-scale anchor by describing her as one of the original Irish influencers and noting @facesbygrace23 at 137,000 Instagram followers at that point. [6]

Receipts

  1. receipt packLinktree current platform map Source What it proves: A current public link hub is live for @facesbygrace_. The page describes the account as a fashion and beauty content creator. It publicly routes to Instagram and TikTok and labels the profile Grace Mongey Gernon. What it does not prove: It does not prove follower numbers, audience quality, or brand impact. It does not prove the historical controversy by itself. Stored at: gos.ie-research/candidates/faces-by-grace/receipt-pack-2026-05-23.md
  2. receipt packMatchstick current representation listing Source What it proves: Matchstick currently lists Grace Mongey on its public client page. The listing gives a current agency/public-facing representation anchor. What it does not prove: It does not prove the start date or exact scope of representation. It does not prove any controversy or commercial result. Stored at: gos.ie-research/candidates/faces-by-grace/receipt-pack-2026-05-23.md
  3. receipt packExtra.ie ASAI/Boots complaint coverage Source What it proves: Extra reported on 30 August 2018 that an ASAI complaint about a Faces by Grace Instagram post was upheld. The report says the issue concerned failure to disclose a working relationship with Boots Ireland on the post. The page attributes the framing to the ASAI complaints bulletin and says this was the second blogger/brand case pulled up by ASAI. What it does not prove: It is not the primary ASAI adjudication itself. It does not by itself prove a broader pattern beyond the cited complaint. Stored at: gos.ie-research/candidates/faces-by-grace/receipt-pack-2026-05-23.md
  4. receipt packHer parallel ASAI complaint coverage Source What it proves: A second Irish outlet maintained parallel coverage of the same 30 August 2018 upheld complaint. The page metadata frames the complaint as involving Grace Mongey and says the blogger apologised for confusion caused. What it does not prove: The host now serves a JS-heavy shell from this environment, so this is weaker than the fully readable Extra capture. It still does not replace direct ASAI wording. Stored at: gos.ie-research/candidates/faces-by-grace/receipt-pack-2026-05-23.md
  5. receipt packSt Patrick's annual-report ambassador record Source What it proves: St Patrick's 2022 annual report says WIMS Ambassador 2022/2023 Grace Mongey Gernon. The report says she was appointed in September 2022 as a digital content creator and mental-health advocate. What it does not prove: It does not prove the rest of her influencer-business chronology. It does not strengthen the ASAI lane beyond showing a later public-facing role. Stored at: gos.ie-research/candidates/faces-by-grace/receipt-pack-2026-05-23.md
  6. receipt packIrish Times 2024 influencer-economy profile Source What it proves: The Irish Times profiled Grace Mongey Gernon on 21 September 2024 as a full-time content creator across beauty, lifestyle, and fashion. The piece says she started a Facebook page and YouTube channel in 2011, then expanded via Snapchat after returning to Dublin and doing a make-up course. The article gives a current-scale anchor by describing her as one of the original Irish influencers and noting @facesbygrace23 at 137,000 Instagram followers at that point. What it does not prove: It does not replace direct agency contracts, platform analytics, or ad-disclosure primary material. It does not by itself establish the ASAI chronology beyond showing the later professionalised influencer lane. Stored at: gos.ie-research/candidates/faces-by-grace/receipt-pack-2026-05-23.md
  7. receipt packAdvertising Standards Authority direct Boots/Faces by Grace decision Source What it proves: The Advertising Standards Authority site now directly publishes complaint reference 30643 for Boots and Faces by Grace. The page identifies the medium as Internet (Social Media) and cites Code sections 2.4(c), 3.31, 3.32. It says the complaint concerned an Instagram post/story sequence promoting the Boots Digital Advantage Card without appropriate sponsored-post tagging. It records the advertisers' response that one of seven Instagram story posts went live without the required #sp or #ad reference. It records the influencer response as a human error explanation with an apology for confusion caused. It concludes Complaint Upheld and says the advertisement should not appear again in its curren What it does not prove: It does not recover the separate 2017 Miss Fit Skinny Tea complaint. It does not by itself prove a wider recurring pattern beyond this specific Boots case. It does not create a fresh 2025-2026 controversy hook. Stored at: gos.ie-research/candidates/faces-by-grace/receipt-pack-2026-05-23.md
  8. receipt packAdvertising Standards Authority direct Miss Fit Skinny Tea decision Source What it proves: The Advertising Standards Authority site directly publishes complaint reference 27707 for Faces By Grace/Miss Fit Skinny Tea. The page identifies the medium as Online and cites Code sections 2.4(c), 3.31, 3.32. It reproduces the Snapchat promotion copy, including Drop a Dress Size Challenge and the discount code grace2017. It records the complainant's allegation that the detox-programme promotion was not clearly identified as sponsored content. It records responses from both Miss Fit Skinny Tea and Faces By Grace and says the committee dealt with the matter by issuing a statement. It says the committee advised both the blogger and the advertiser to take note of its concerns and reminded the What it does not prove: It does not show the original Snapchat posts as users saw them; it only preserves the complaint-page summary and quoted copy. It does not conclude with Complaint Upheld; the remedy here was a committee statement and warning-style action. It does not provide a fresh 2025-2026 hook by itself. Stored at: gos.ie-research/candidates/faces-by-grace/receipt-pack-2026-05-23.md
  9. receipt packAdvertising Standards Authority direct Renewell Water / Faces by Grace decision Source What it proves: The Advertising Standards Authority site directly publishes a complaint page naming Renewell Water Limited as advertiser and Faces by Grace as influencer. The page identifies the medium as Internet - Social Media. It cites Code sections 2.4(c), 3.3, 3.10, 4.1, 4.4, 4.9, 4.10. The complaint page reproduces the ad's broad claim set around bad tap water, a home water test, and a filtered-water giveaway. The complaint says the ad gave a false impression that tap water was unsuitable for drinking and criticised the lack of testing detail and evidence. The page states both the influencer and Renewell Water failed to provide a response. The conclusion records Complaint upheld and says the Committee What it does not prove: It does not by itself date a fresh 2025-2026 controversy; the page is a recovered official record for an older complaint. It does not prove audience impact, sales impact, or repeat sanctions beyond the complaint itself. It does not make family or private-life coverage relevant to the lane. Stored at: gos.ie-research/candidates/faces-by-grace/receipt-pack-2026-05-23.md
  10. receipt packAdvertising Standards Authority direct clothing affiliate-link decision Source What it proves: The Advertising Standards Authority site directly publishes complaint reference 31780 naming Faces by Grace as advertiser. The page identifies the medium as Internet - Advertisers' own website, tying the complaint to facesbygrace.com. It cites Code sections 2.4(c), 3.31, 3.32. It says the homepage blog-format fashion post had not been identified as advertising material and should have disclosed rewardStyle affiliate links. It records Grace Mongey's response as a human error explanation, says she amended the post, and says she checked prior posts for the disclaimer. The conclusion records Complaint Upheld and says no further action was required because the advertising had already been amended What it does not prove: It does not show the full original page layout or every linked product as readers saw it. It does not prove a fresh current website/business state; it only proves the historical complaint and remedy. It does not create a 2025-2026 controversy hook by itself. Stored at: gos.ie-research/candidates/faces-by-grace/receipt-pack-2026-05-23.md
  11. receipt packSTELLAR early creator-business profile Source What it proves: STELLAR published a profile on 12 September 2015 framing Grace Mongey as the person behind Faces By Grace. The piece says she had started blogging about four years earlier, took a two-year break while in Australia, and restarted about a year before publication. It says she was working as a make-up artist for Bare Minerals alongside running Faces By Grace. It gives an early scale marker by saying she had 65,000 followers across social platforms at that point. What it does not prove: It does not prove current audience scale or later business status. It is a profile/interview format, so it is weaker than official records for disputed claims. It does not create a current controversy or compliance hook by itself. Stored at: gos.ie-research/candidates/faces-by-grace/receipt-pack-2026-05-23.md
  12. receipt packSTELLAR secondary coverage of the 2017 Snapchat complaint Source What it proves: STELLAR published attributable secondary coverage on 23 June 2017 about the Miss Fit Skinny Tea Snapchat complaint lane. The piece says Grace Mongey had been reported after Snapchat posts about Miss Fit Skinny Tea offers were shared without #ad. It reproduces the contemporaneous framing that the ASAI was dealing with disappearing-story format problems around Snapchat disclosures. What it does not prove: It does not replace the direct adstandards complaint page, which remains the stronger primary source. It does not prove that every viewer saw or missed every disclosure; it is outlet framing of the complaint. It does not create a fresh 2025-2026 hook. Stored at: gos.ie-research/candidates/faces-by-grace/receipt-pack-2026-05-23.md

Open questions

  • Keep to public-facing influencing, ad-disclosure/compliance, agency/platform mapping, and attributable ambassador roles.
  • The compliance lane is now backed by four direct adstandards pages plus early profile chronology, but it still needs a fresher public business or compliance hook for promotion.

Generated by cow-scorecards-v1 on 2026-05-26. Badges are editorial status labels, not numeric rankings.