Rulings (113)
  • Asos.com Ltd

    • Upheld
    • Email
    • 05 May 2021

    A marketing communication email from ASOS was banned for implying all their products were included in an offer when this was not the case.

  • Blood and Medical Services Ltd t/a Vivo Clinic Shop

    • Upheld
    • Internet (website content)
    • 05 May 2021

    A website ad for a health clinic was banned for making misleading claims about the speed at which they could provide the results for Covid-19 tests.

  • British Telecommunications plc t/a BT

    • Upheld in part
    • Poster
    • 05 May 2021

    A poster for BT was banned for making misleading claims about the reliability of their full fibre broadband.

  • Homeopathy UK

    • Upheld
    • Internet (website content)
    • 05 May 2021

    A website ad for a homeopathy clinic was banned for discouraging essential treatment for conditions for which medical supervision should be sought.

  • Maple Syrup Media Ltd t/a Quidco, Quidco.com

    • Upheld
    • Internet (website content), Social media (own site)
    • 05 May 2021

    A website and Facebook ad for a cashback service provider were banned for making misleading claims.

  • Money Advisor Ltd t/a Money Advisor

    • Upheld in part
    • Television, Internet (website content)
    • 05 May 2021

    A TV and website ad for a debt advice service were banned for misleadingly implying that they were qualified to provide debt counselling or management services, or that they could help consumers write-off debt.

  • Learning Group Ltd t/a Montessori Tutors

    • Upheld
    • Internet (website content)
    • 28 April 2021

    A website ad for a tutoring company was banned for quoting earnings figures that could not be adequately substantiated.

  • Justyouroutfit.com Ltd t/a Just Your Outfit

    • Upheld
    • Internet (on own site)
    • 21 April 2021

    Three website listings for clothing products were banned for misleadingly implying that they contained exclusively faux fur with no real animal fur.

  • Gallaher Ltd t/a JTI UK

    • Upheld in part
    • VOD
    • 14 April 2021

    A video ad for a nicotine pouch product was banned for implying that nicotine pouches had mood-alerting or stimulant effects which made gaming more enjoyable.

  • Missguided Ltd

    • Upheld
    • Social media (influencer or affiliate ad)
    • 14 April 2021

    An Instagram post by influencer Zara McDermott promoting Missguided products was banned for not being obviously identifiable as an ad.

  • North Wests Competitions Ltd

    • Upheld
    • Social media (influencer or affiliate ad)
    • 14 April 2021

    Two Instagram posts by an influencer promoting a free giveaway were banned for not being obviously identifiable as ads.

  • Flexible Digital Solutions Ltd

    • Upheld
    • Internet (social networking)
    • 07 April 2021

    A paid-for Facebook ad and a website ad for a debt advice service were banned for exaggerating the speed and ease of the process, trivialising the application process and for not stating the risks and fees associated with IVAs.

  • Grey Technology Ltd t/a Gtech

    • Upheld in part
    • Newspaper, Internet (website content)
    • 07 April 2021

    Two newspaper ads and a website ad for a vacuum cleaner were banned for implying the product could completely eliminate dust clouds without holding adequate evidence to prove this.

  • Jetsun Sunbeds

    • Upheld
    • Internet (social networking)
    • 07 April 2021

    A Facebook post promoting sunbeds misleadingly and irresponsibly claimed that health benefits were obtained from the use of sunbeds.

  • Prettylittlething.com Ltd

    • Upheld
    • Internet (social networking)
    • 07 April 2021

    A TikTok post by influencers promoting a fashion brand broke the CAP Code as it was not obviously identifiable as an ad.

  • TFLI Ltd

    • Upheld
    • Internet (social networking), Internet (website content)
    • 07 April 2021

    A paid-for Facebook ad and a website ad for a debt advice service were banned for exaggerating the speed and ease of the process, exaggerating the amount of debt that could be written off, as well as several other issues.

  • UAB Commerce Core t/a FitsWatch

    • Upheld
    • Internet (video)
    • 07 April 2021

    A paid-for YouTube ad for a smart watch was banned for showing an Apple Watch to promote a different product. We referred the matter to CAP’s Compliance team.

  • Vauxhall Motors Ltd

    • Upheld
    • Television
    • 07 April 2021

    A TV ad for the Vauxhall Corsa was not found to be misleading.

  • Campylite Investments Ltd

    • Upheld
    • Internet (website content), Internet (video)
    • 31 March 2021

    A YouTube video and blog post for a building consultant were banned for denigrating one of their competitors by claiming they were scammers.

  • DNAfit Life Sciences Ltd t/a DNAfit

    • Upheld
    • Social media (influencer or affiliate ad)
    • 31 March 2021

    A paid-for Instagram ad for a health and wellbeing company was banned for misleadingly implying they could provide consumers with effective personalised exercise and nutrition advice based on sequencing of their DNA that would result in improved health and fitness outcomes.