Rulings (10)
  • Alibaba.com Singapore E-commerce Private Ltd t/a AliExpress

    • Upheld
    • Social media (paid ad)
    • 17 September 2025

    A paid-for Facebook ad for the AliExpress shopping app was misleading by showing a product as part of a promotion when it was not actually available at the price stated.

  • Alibaba.com Singapore E-commerce Private Ltd t/a AliExpress

    • Upheld
    • Search (paid), Email
    • 17 September 2025

    An email and paid-for Google search ad for AliExpress made misleading price statements.

  • Dribble Media Ltd t/a Midnite

    • Upheld
    • Social media (own site)
    • 17 September 2025

    A post on Midnite’s X page featuring an AI generated video depicting footballer Trent Alexander-Arnold had strong appeal to under-18s.

  • Gorgeous Shard Puzzle Studio

    • Upheld
    • 17 September 2025

    An in-game ad for a mobile game app was socially irresponsible and likely to cause serious and widespread offence, including by objectifying and sexualising women and featuring a harmful gender stereotype.

  • Indigo Sun Retail Ltd t/a Indigo Sun

    • Upheld
    • Website (own site)
    • 17 September 2025

    A website for a sunbed tanning salon company made misleading and irresponsible claims about the health benefits that could be obtained from the use of sunbeds.

  • L'Oréal (UK) Ltd t/a La Roche – Posay

    • Upheld in part
    • 17 September 2025

    A product listing on the La Roche Posay website didn’t provide sufficient information to allow consumers to verify comparisons with identifiable competitors. We also investigated whether the ad made unsubstantiated claims but didn’t find it to be in breach of the rules.

  • Menwell Ltd t/a Voy

    • Upheld
    • Search (paid)
    • 17 September 2025

    A paid-for Google ad for weight-loss treatments promoted prescription-only medicines to the public, against the law and our rules.

  • Person(s) Unknown t/a YourDailyPatch

    • Upheld
    • Search (paid)
    • 17 September 2025

    A paid-for Google ad for diet patches made unsubstantiated and misleading claims that their patch could assist with fat burning and weight-loss.

  • SJC&M Ltd t/a Scar Erase

    • Upheld in part
    • Internet (classified)
    • 17 September 2025

    A product listing on Amazon for scar treatments made unsubstantiated efficacy claims about the treatment period and exaggerated the products efficacy in before and after photos. We also investigated whether the ad made medical claims that broke the rules but we didn’t find it to be in breach.

  • Simmer Ltd

    • Upheld
    • Social media (paid ad)
    • 17 September 2025

    A paid-for TikTok ad for a meal prep service misleadingly implied that their menu was curated by chefs who had been awarded a Michelin star.

Informally resolved (8)
  • AirHop Ltd

    • 17 September 2025
    • Number of complaints: 1

  • Check Car Details

    • 17 September 2025
    • Number of complaints: 1

  • Fox & Edwards Events Ltd

    • 17 September 2025
    • Number of complaints: 1

  • Grub Club Pets Ltd

    • 17 September 2025
    • Number of complaints: 1

  • John Lewis plc

    • 17 September 2025
    • Number of complaints: 1

  • MNU Ltd

    • 17 September 2025
    • Number of complaints: 1

  • Roley's BV Ltd

    • 17 September 2025
    • Number of complaints: 1

  • Sequiter Inc

    • 17 September 2025
    • Number of complaints: 1