Rulings (62)
  • Global Health Tests Ltd t/a Check My Body Health

    • Upheld
    • Website (own site)
    • 22 April 2026

    A website for a Bioresonance hair test misleadingly claimed that the test could comprehensively analyse body intolerances.

  • L'Oréal (UK) Ltd

    • Upheld
    • Video on demand
    • 22 April 2026

    A Video-On-Demand ad for a serum made misleading claims that it was clinically proven to reduce hyperpigmentation in two weeks.

  • 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...

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • TFS Buying Ltd

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

    A paid-for Facebook ad for a buy now pay later arrangement irresponsibly encouraged non-essential spending through the use of credit, particularly in relation to funding non-essential Christmas purchases.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.  

  • 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.

  • Dribble Media Ltd t/a Midnite

    • Upheld
    • Social media (own site)
    • 26 November 2025

    A post on Midnite’s X page featured a person who was likely to have strong appeal to under-18s.