-
King.com Ltd
Two paid-for Facebook ads for a mobile game misleadingly suggested that the content shown was representative of actual gameplay.
-
Omnilojo Pte Ltd
Three paid-for Google ads for a mobile game misleadingly suggested that the content shown was representative of actual gameplay. The ads also implied that the game had won awards when this wasn’t the case.
-
Scopely Inc
Two paid-for Facebook ads for a mobile game misleadingly suggested that the content shown was representative of actual gameplay.
-
Vistrex Ltd t/a Royal Ark
A paid-for Facebook ad and an app store listing for a mobile game misleadingly suggested that the content shown was representative of actual gameplay.
-
Xun Meng International Ltd
A paid-for Google ad and landing page for an online retailer misleadingly exaggerated the capabilities of a portable internet device and made misleading claims that people could make a one-off payment for the device and receive free or unlimited internet access for life without monthly fees or other ongoing costs.
-
Attraction Tickets Ltd t/a Attraction Tickets
A paid-for Google ad for an online seller of theme-park, sightseeing and excursion tickets made misleading claims about a price match promise.
-
Cara Capsules Ltd t/a Home + Health
A paid-for Facebook ad and website for a dishwasher tablet company misleadingly claimed that standard dishwasher tablets were harmful to humans and made comparative claims about the toxicity, health and safety of dishwasher tablets, without enough evidence to support these claims.
-
JPD Retail Ltd t/a Harrison & James
A paid-for static YouTube ad and website for an online jewellery retailer misleadingly implied their business would close on a specific date. The ad also misleadingly described products as “free” and failed to ensure that reviews, ratings and testimonials were accurate and supported by evidence.
-
Proud & Free
A paid-for Facebook ad and website for an online jewellery brand misleadingly implied they were going to cease trading and that products were available for a limited time. The ads also misleadingly described products as “free” and failed to trading identity and business address.
-
Unicorn Brands Ltd t/a Nutrition Geeks
A paid-for Facebook ad for a supplement brand made unauthorised health and nutrition claims.
-
Care Pharma Bradford Ltd t/a The Care Pharmacy
A paid-for Google search ad for an online pharmacy promoted prescription-only medicines to the public, against the law and our rules.
-
MedExpress Enterprises Ltd t/a MedExpress
A paid-for Facebook ad for MedExpress promoted prescription-only medicines to the public, against the law and our rules.
-
Menwell Ltd t/a Do Health
Two ads for a health app incorporating a blood testing programme misleadingly implied that their blood tests could prevent and diagnose medical conditions or that their service could provide more tailored specific advice than pre-existing advice, without the evidence to support these claims.
-
Esaverwatt.com t/a StopWatt
A product listing on Amazon for a smart home energy monitoring brand misleadingly exaggerated the effectiveness of the product by making claims that it could save electricity, reduce electricity waste and lower energy bills.
-
Harnbury Holdings Ltd t/a San Carlo
An Instagram post by Pamela Olender for the restaurant San Carlo Cicchetti wasn’t obviously identifiable as an ad and broke the rules by featuring an identifiable less healthy food product.
-
Here We Flo Ltd t/a Flo
Three Instagram posts for a period product company made misleading environmental claims, including by failing to make the basis of environmental claims clear.
-
Reliable Medicare Ltd
Three product listings on the website of a medical aesthetics and skincare supplier made misleading savings claims.
-
Pimlico Plumbers Ltd t/a Pimlico
A website for Pimlico Plumbers that made ‘24/7 service’ claims wasn’t misleading.
-
Hemios
A paid-for Facebook ad and a paid-for YouTube display ad for a magnetic bracelet made misleading claims in relation to weight-loss and improving erectile performance.
-
Lotus Leisure Ltd t/a DialAFlight
A paid-for Meta ad for a travel agent didn’t make the basis for their environmental claims clear.
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 (198)