-
Health Bridge Ltd t/a Zava
An advertorial promoting medicated weight-loss seen on the Mumsnet website didn’t make it clear it was an ad, used healthcare professionals to endorse a medicine and promoted prescription-only medicines to the public, against the law and our rules.
-
Golden Vape UK Ltd
Seven product listings on eBay promoted unlicenced nicotine containing e-cigarettes and their components in media where these products cannot be advertised.
-
Health Bridge Ltd t/a Zava
An Instagram post, TikTok video and a Facebook post for weight-loss injections promoted prescription-only medicines to the public, against the law and our rules.
-
MedExpress Enterprises Ltd t/a MedExpress
Three Instagram posts and a TikTok video for weight-loss injections promoted prescription-only medicines to the public, against the law and our rules.
-
Menwell Ltd t/a Voy
Four Instagram ads for weight-loss injections promoted prescription-only medicines to the public, against the law and our rules.
-
UK Meds Direct Ltd
Two TikTok ads for weight-loss injections promoted prescription-only medicines to the public, against the law and our rules.
-
Dribble Media Ltd t/a Midnite
A post on Midnite’s X page featured a person who was likely to have strong appeal to under-18s.
-
Beautaholics Ltd
A paid-for Meta ad and a website page for a hair and skincare retailer which featured an LED facemask made medicinal claims for a product that was not registered with the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) and didn't have the applicable conformity marking.
-
Cleriva t/a NovaFlow
Two paid-for Facebook ads for a sinus clearing device made medical claims for a product that did not have the applicable conformity marking and was not registered with the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA).
-
Invention Works BV t/a Silk’n
A paid-for Meta ad and website page for a hair and skincare tool retailer, which featured an LED facemask, made medicinal claims for a product that was not registered with the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) and did not have the applicable conformity marking.
-
Project E Beauty LLC
A paid-for Meta ad and a website page for a hair and skincare retailer, which featured an LED facemask made medicinal claims for a product that was not registered with the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) and did not have the applicable conformity marking.
-
RTSB Ltd t/a Match Bingo
A YouTube ad for Match Bingo, which featured the Tottenham Hotspur football team, was not inappropriately targeted to under-18s.
-
persons unknown t/a Arthur Mystery Book
An in-game ad for a mobile game app was socially irresponsible and likely to cause serious and widespread offence by objectifying and sexualising women and featuring a harmful gender stereotype.
-
Sweet Bee Organics Ltd
A website for a beauty products retailer made medicinal claims about an unlicensed product.
-
HW Fantasy Ltd t/a My Passion
An in-game ad for an online romantic novel service, seen in a puzzle game was socially irresponsible and likely to cause serious and widespread offence, including by trivialising violence against women.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
Rulings
Our rulings are published every Wednesday and set out on the public record how, following a formal investigation, the advertising rules apply and where we draw the line in judging whether an ad has broken the rules. We also publish a list of companies and organisations which agree to amend or withdraw their ad without being subject to a formal ruling.
Rulings (48)