Rulings (25)
  • Co-operative Group t/a Co-op

    • Upheld in part
    • Website (own site)
    • 04 February 2026

    A website for Co-op advertising a price-match scheme was misleading by not comparing the most appropriate products. The ad also failed to make the basis of comparisons clear and didn’t provide prominent information to allow people to verify comparisons. Two other issues were investigated but did not break the rul...

  • Criterion Hospitality Limited t/a Zedwell Hotels

    • Not upheld
    • Social media (paid ad)
    • 04 February 2026

    A paid-for Meta ad for Zedwell Hotels didn’t make misleading claims about the price of hotel rooms.

  • Kind Patches Ltd

    • Upheld
    • Social media (paid ad)
    • 04 February 2026

    Four paid-for Facebook ads for a supplement company misleadingly implied their products had health benefits without having suitable evidence to back these claims up.

  • Kit & Kin Ltd

    • Upheld
    • 04 February 2026

    A website for a baby product company failed to make the basis of environmental and comparative claims clear, didn’t have suitable evidence to support these claims and gave a misleading impression of their products’ environmental impact.

  • The Cheeky Panda Ltd

    • Upheld
    • Website (own site)
    • 04 February 2026

    A website for a baby product company failed to make the basis of environmental and comparative claims clear and didn’t have suitable evidence to support the claims made.  

  • persons unknown t/a Animals Solitaire: Protect

    • Upheld
    • In-game (apps)
    • 04 February 2026

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

  • CB Payments Ltd t/a Coinbase

    • Upheld
    • Poster, Video on demand
    • 28 January 2026

    A video on demand ad and three posters for Coinbase, a cryptocurrency trading platform, irresponsibly trivialised the risks of cryptocurrency investment and implied it was a solution to financial concerns associated with the cost of living.

  • Dreame International Hong Kong Ltd t/a Stary PTE Ltd

    • Upheld
    • App (own claim)
    • 28 January 2026

    Two in-app ads for a romantic fiction app were socially irresponsible and likely to cause serious and widespread offence including by trivialising or condoning violence against women and girls and featuring sexually explicit content. The ads also were irresponsibly targeted.

  • GJF Baron Nobilis Services Co. Ltd t/a Noble Titles

    • Upheld
    • Website (own site)
    • 28 January 2026

    A webpage for a title purchasing website misleadingly implied that the public could purchase a legal or officially recognised title through their service.

  • Mamedica Ltd

    • Upheld
    • Website (own site)
    • 28 January 2026

    A website for a medical cannabis clinic made misleading price comparison claims, failed to make the basis of comparisons with competitors clear and didn’t ensure that people would be able to verify comparative claims.

  • Manchester Fertility Services Ltd t/a Egg Donors UK

    • Upheld
    • Social media (paid ad)
    • 28 January 2026

    Two paid-for Facebook ads for Egg Donors UK trivialised the decision to donate eggs by emphasising the financial compensation.

  • TUI UK Ltd

    • Upheld
    • Website (own site)
    • 28 January 2026

    A holiday listing featured on the TUI website misleadingly advertised prices that weren’t available to the public.

  • Whitworths Ltd

    • Upheld
    • Social media (own site)
    • 28 January 2026

    An Instagram carousel post for WhitworthsUK misleadingly implied that a product counted toward the Government’s recommended “five a day” portions of fruit and vegetables and made unauthorised comparative nutrition claims.

  • easyJet Airline Co Ltd

    • Upheld
    • Website (own site)
    • 28 January 2026

    A webpage for easyJet used “from” price claims which misleadingly implied that large cabin bags were available at the advertised price across a significant proportion of their flights.

  • Byrokko

    • Upheld
    • Social media (paid ad)
    • 21 January 2026

    A paid for Facebook ad for a tanning accelerator misleadingly and irresponsibly implied that the use of sunbeds was safe, and that using their product during sunbed use could help people achieve a tan quickly and safely.

  • JD Tanning UK Ltd

    • Upheld
    • Social media (paid ad)
    • 21 January 2026

    Two paid-for Meta ads for a sunbed hire company misleadingly and irresponsibly claimed that sunbed use offered health benefits and that the use of sunbeds was safe. The ads also discouraged essential treatment for conditions for which medical supervision should be sought, including psoriasis.

  • SFJ Group Ltd t/a SunShine Co

    • Upheld
    • Social media (paid ad)
    • 21 January 2026

    A paid-for Google search ad for a tanning studio was socially irresponsible and misleading by suggesting that tanning could be obtained safely.

  • Tanbox Towcester Ltd

    • Upheld
    • Social media (paid ad)
    • 21 January 2026

    A paid-for Facebook ad for a tanning studio misleadingly and irresponsibly claimed that sunbed use offered health benefits and that the use of sunbeds was healthy. The ad also discouraged essential treatment for conditions for which medical supervision should be sought, including seasonal affective disorder (SAD).

  • The Sun Company (Horsham) Ltd t/a The Sun Company

    • Upheld
    • Social media (paid ad)
    • 21 January 2026

    A paid-for Instagram ad for a tanning studio was socially irresponsible and misleading by suggesting that tanning could be obtained safely.

  • Whiskey & Wealth Club Ltd

    • Upheld
    • Social media (paid ad), Website (own site)
    • 21 January 2026

    A paid-for Facebook ad, landing page and website for a whiskey cask investment company made misleading claims about investment returns. The ad also failed to make clear that cask whiskey investments were unregulated and that the value of investments was variable.

Informally resolved (34)
  • Carphone Warehouse Ltd

    • 04 February 2026
    • Number of complaints: 1

  • Cellexia Ltd

    • 04 February 2026
    • Number of complaints: 1

  • Premier Waste Services (UK) Ltd

    • 04 February 2026
    • Number of complaints: 1

  • Revolution Bars Group plc

    • 04 February 2026
    • Number of complaints: 1

  • Sunna Supplements Ltd

    • 04 February 2026
    • Number of complaints: 1

  • TangoMe Cyprus Ltd t/a PULSZ.TV

    • 04 February 2026
    • Number of complaints: 1

  • Tudorvend Ltd

    • 04 February 2026
    • Number of complaints: 1

  • YouFibre Ltd

    • 04 February 2026
    • Number of complaints: 1

  • eBay (UK) Ltd

    • 04 February 2026
    • Number of complaints: 1

  • Activision Blizzard UK Ltd

    • 28 January 2026
    • Number of complaints: 1

  • Next Retail Ltd

    • 28 January 2026
    • Number of complaints: 1

  • The Glasgow Academy

    • 28 January 2026
    • Number of complaints: 1

  • Wightlink Ltd

    • 28 January 2026
    • Number of complaints: 1

  • Yorktest Laboratories Ltd

    • 28 January 2026
    • Number of complaints: 1

  • Audible Ltd

    • 21 January 2026
    • Number of complaints: 1

  • Cell Regeneration Ltd

    • 21 January 2026
    • Number of complaints: 1

  • Lovebug Ltd

    • 21 January 2026
    • Number of complaints: 1

  • News Group Newspapers Ltd

    • 21 January 2026
    • Number of complaints: 1

  • Omni Pet Ltd

    • 21 January 2026
    • Number of complaints: 1

  • Osprey Charging Network Ltd

    • 21 January 2026
    • Number of complaints: 1