-
Community Fibre Ltd
Two pages on the Community Fibre website misleadingly implied that they were the number one rated for internet provider and that they had the most 5 star reviews on third party website.
-
Hammonds Furniture Ltd t/a Hammonds
A banner ad and a page on the Hammonds Furniture website, misleadingly implied that discount offers were time limited and also made unsubstantiated and unverifiable comparative claims with identifiable competitors.
-
BCCR Ltd t/a Belief Coding Cognitive Rewiring
Two posts on Jessica Cunningham’s Facebook page advertising belief coding discouraged essential treatment for conditions for which medical supervision should be sought and made unsubstantiated claims for the efficacy of belief coding in treating health conditions.
-
Shell Energy UK
A paid-for LinkedIn ad for Shell Energy didn't give a misleading impression of the overall environmental impact of Shell’s business activities.
-
Au Vodka Ltd
A TikTok post by influencer Lucinda Strafford, a paid-for Facebook post featuring influencer Kai Cenat and another paid-for Facebook post advertising AU Vodka were inappropriately targeted, directed at under-18s and featured people who were, or appeared to be, under-25.
-
Currys Group Ltd t/a Currys
A paid-for Facebook ad for Currys was misleading and socially irresponsible by implying that e-scooters could be ridden on public roads.
-
JLG Legal Ltd t/a Johnson Law Group
A Google paid-for search ad, a paid-for Facebook ad and website for Johnson Law Group, relating to group action compensation claims by diesel vehicle owners and lessees, failed to make clear that by providing their details and e-signing, people were signing a legally binding contract to join a group action claim, omitt...
-
Jones Whyte Law Ltd t/a Jones Whyte
A website and paid-for Facebook ad for James Whyte, relating to group action compensation claims for people who had been affected by a data breach, failed to present material information clearly and also omitted material information.
-
KP Law Ltd
A website and a paid-for Facebook ad for Join the Claim, relating to group action compensation claims by people who had been affected by a data breach, falsely implied that the advertiser was acting for purposes outside its business, didn’t make their commercial intent clear, didn’t present material informa...
-
Marble Muse
A website for a clothing company misleadingly implied that they were UK based and omitted the identity and geographical address of the company.
-
Voodoo Doll Ltd t/a MOJO Manchester
A paid-for Meta ad for a bar, which referenced alcoholic drinks, was irresponsible by being likely to have particular appeal to under-18s and by encouraging excessive drinking.
-
Alibaba.com Singapore E-commerce Private Ltd t/a AliExpress
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
An email and paid-for Google search ad for AliExpress made misleading price statements.
-
Dribble Media Ltd t/a Midnite
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
-
Toolport GmbH t/a House of Tents
Topic: Home and garden