Rulings (105)
  • Persons unknown t/a Cloud Nine

    • Upheld
    • Social media (paid ad)
    • 01 April 2026

    A paid-for Facebook ad for a clothing company made medical claims for a product that didn’t have the relevant compliance labels and wasn’t registered with the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency. The ad also discouraged essential treatment for a condition for which medical supervision should...

  • 222 Collective Group Ltd t/a 222collectiveuk

    • Upheld
    • Social media (paid ad), Website (own site)
    • 25 March 2026

    A paid-for Facebook and Instagram ad for a food supplement brand made claims that their supplements could prevent, treat or cure the symptoms of the menopause and Pre-Menstrual Syndrome (PMS).

  • Kaocommerce Ltd t/a Lunera

    • Upheld
    • Social media (paid ad)
    • 25 March 2026

    Two paid-for Meta ads for a food supplement brand made claims that their supplements could prevent, treat or cure symptoms of the menopause and inflammation. The ad also made unauthorised health claims.

  • Mark Anthony Brands (UK) Ltd t/a White Claw UK

    • Upheld
    • Social media (own site)
    • 25 March 2026

    An Instagram Highlight on White Claw UK’s page, an alcohol brand, featured three Stories showing individuals who appeared to be under 25, breaching the alcohol advertising rules.

  • Minerva Wellness Ltd

    • Upheld
    • Social media (paid ad), Website (own site)
    • 25 March 2026

    A paid-for Facebook ad and website for a supplement brand misleadingly implied their food supplements could prevent, treat or cure symptoms of the menopause. The ad also made unauthorised specific health claims.

  • Nova Relief t/a Nova Menopause Vitality

    • Upheld
    • Social media (paid ad)
    • 25 March 2026

    Two paid-for Facebook ads for a food supplement company misleadingly implied their food supplements could prevent, treat or cure symptoms of the menopause. The ad also made unauthorised specific health claims.

  • Polybiotics Ltd t/a Polybiotics

    • Upheld
    • Social media (paid ad), Website (own site)
    • 25 March 2026

    A paid-for Facebook and Instagram ad and a website for a food supplement brand misleading implied their food supplements could prevent, cure or treat Polycystic Ovarian Syndrome (PCOS). The ad also made unauthorised specific health claims and made health claims that referred to the recommendation of an individual healt...

  • Digital Vapers

    • Upheld
    • Leaflet
    • 18 March 2026

    A leaflet for a vape retailer featuring colourful cartoon-style fruit characters broke the rules by being likely to appeal particularly to people under 18 years of age.

  • Grind Coffee Roasters Ltd t/a Grind

    • Upheld
    • Website (own site)
    • 18 March 2026

    An ad on Grind’s own website for its coffee pods failed to make the basis of a price comparison clear and misrepresented their competitor product’s end-of-life arrangements.

  • Humantra UK Operations Ltd t/a Humantra

    • Upheld
    • Social media (paid ad)
    • 18 March 2026

    A paid-for Facebook ad for electrolyte sachets broke rules prohibit claims that state or imply a food can prevent, treat or cure human disease. 

  • ZOE Ltd

    • Upheld
    • Social media (paid ad)
    • 11 March 2026

    [Republished ruling] A paid-for Facebook ad misleadingly claimed that a supplement didn’t contain any ultra-processed ingredients. 

  • RTSB Ltd t/a Match Bingo

    • Not upheld
    • Social media (influencer or affiliate ad)
    • 04 March 2026

    [Republished ruling] A YouTube ad for Match Bingo, which featured the Tottenham Hotspur Football team, wasn’t inappropriately targeted to under-18s.

  • Wild Nutrition Ltd

    • Upheld
    • Poster
    • 04 March 2026

    A poster for a supplement company misleadingly claimed their ingredients came from food or natural sources.

  • persons unknown t/a Evora Official

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

    Four paid-for Facebook ads and a website for a multi-sensory stuffed toy made unlicenced medicinal claims that weren’t backed up by robust evidence, including that the product could relieve symptoms of anxiety and insomnia. The ads also made misleading claims about testimonials and didn’t have evidence to s...

  • Health Bridge Ltd t/a Zava

    • Upheld
    • Website (ad feature)
    • 18 February 2026

    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

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

    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

    • Upheld
    • Social media (influencer or affiliate ad)
    • 11 February 2026

    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

    • Upheld
    • Social media (influencer or affiliate ad)
    • 11 February 2026

    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

    • Upheld
    • Social media (influencer or affiliate ad)
    • 11 February 2026

    Four Instagram ads for weight-loss injections promoted prescription-only medicines to the public, against the law and our rules.

  • UK Meds Direct Ltd

    • Upheld
    • Social media (influencer or affiliate ad)
    • 11 February 2026

    Two TikTok ads for weight-loss injections promoted prescription-only medicines to the public, against the law and our rules.