Rulings (294)
  • Alibaba.com Singapore E-commerce Private Ltd t/a AliExpress

    • Upheld
    • Social media (paid ad)
    • 17 September 2025

    A paid-for Facebook ad for the AliExpress shopping app was misleading by showing a product as part of a promotion when it was not actually available at the price stated.

  • Alibaba.com Singapore E-commerce Private Ltd t/a AliExpress

    • Upheld
    • Search (paid), Email
    • 17 September 2025

    An email and paid-for Google search ad for AliExpress made misleading price statements.

  • Dribble Media Ltd t/a Midnite

    • Upheld
    • Social media (own site)
    • 17 September 2025

    A post on Midnite’s X page featuring an AI generated video depicting footballer Trent Alexander-Arnold had strong appeal to under-18s.

  • Gorgeous Shard Puzzle Studio

    • Upheld
    • In-game (apps)
    • 17 September 2025

    An in-game ad for a mobile game app was socially irresponsible and likely to cause serious and widespread offence, including by objectifying and sexualising women and featuring a harmful gender stereotype.

  • Indigo Sun Retail Ltd t/a Indigo Sun

    • Upheld
    • Website (own site)
    • 17 September 2025

    A website for a sunbed tanning salon company made misleading and irresponsible claims about the health benefits that could be obtained from the use of sunbeds.

  • L'Oréal (UK) Ltd t/a La Roche – Posay

    • Upheld in part
    • Internet (classified)
    • 17 September 2025

    A product listing on the La Roche Posay website didn’t provide sufficient information to allow consumers to verify comparisons with identifiable competitors. We also investigated whether the ad made unsubstantiated claims but didn’t find it to be in breach of the rules.

  • Menwell Ltd t/a Voy

    • Upheld
    • Search (paid)
    • 17 September 2025

    A paid-for Google ad for weight-loss treatments promoted prescription-only medicines to the public, against the law and our rules.

  • Person(s) Unknown t/a YourDailyPatch

    • Upheld
    • Search (paid)
    • 17 September 2025

    A paid-for Google ad for diet patches made unsubstantiated and misleading claims that their patch could assist with fat burning and weight-loss.

  • SJC&M Ltd t/a Scar Erase

    • Upheld in part
    • Internet (classified)
    • 17 September 2025

    A product listing on Amazon for scar treatments made unsubstantiated efficacy claims about the treatment period and exaggerated the products efficacy in before and after photos. We also investigated whether the ad made medical claims that broke the rules but we didn’t find it to be in breach.

  • Simmer Ltd

    • Upheld
    • Social media (paid ad)
    • 17 September 2025

    A paid-for TikTok ad for a meal prep service misleadingly implied that their menu was curated by chefs who had been awarded a Michelin star.

  • Dr Vegan Ltd

    • Upheld
    • Social media (own site)
    • 10 September 2025

    An Instagram post for Dr Vegan Ltd claimed that a food supplement could prevent, treat or cure symptoms of the menopause and made medicinal claims for products that weren’t authorised by the Medicines and Healthcare Regulatory Agency.

  • Heineken UK Ltd

    • Upheld
    • Social media (influencer or affiliate ad)
    • 10 September 2025

    An Instagram post by the comedian Al Nash advertising Strongbow, implied that alcohol was indispensable and took priority in life.

  • Mast-Jagermeister UK t/a Jägermeister

    • Upheld
    • Social media (paid ad)
    • 10 September 2025

    Two paid-for Facebook and Instagram ads for Jägermeister were socially irresponsible and implied that alcohol was a key component of the success of a social event.

  • Barrhead Travel Service Ltd t/a Barrhead Travel

    • Upheld
    • Search (paid)
    • 03 September 2025

    A paid-for Google ad for a travel agency gave a misleading impression of the advertised cruises’ environmental impact by failing to make the basis of environmental claims clear and not holding robust substantiation to support them.

  • BetterVits LLC

    • Upheld
    • Social media (own site)
    • 03 September 2025

    An Instagram post by the influencer Doctor Shireen made unauthorised health claims in relation to food supplements, exaggerated authorised health claims and made health claims that referred to the recommendation of an individual health professional, which is against the rules in ads for food supplements.

  • Easytek Ltd t/a Vape Superstore

    • Upheld
    • Website (own site)
    • 03 September 2025

    A website for a vape retailer misleadingly implied that their products had been tested and endorsed by the Medicines and Healthcare Regulatory Agency. 

  • Imperial Tobacco Ltd t/a Rizla UK

    • Upheld
    • Social media (paid ad)
    • 03 September 2025

    A paid-for Facebook ad for Rizla UK was socially irresponsible and condoned the use of illegal drugs by trivialising recreational drug use.

  • KamaGames Ltd t/a Blackjackist

    • Upheld
    • Social media (paid ad)
    • 03 September 2025

    A paid-for X ad for the Blackjack 21: Blackjackist game misleadingly stated that the game didn’t contain in-game purchases, including random-item purchases.

  • Sunshine Cruise Holidays Ltd t/a cruise 1st

    • Upheld
    • Website (own site)
    • 03 September 2025

    A webpage advertising a cruise operator failed to make the basis of environmental and comparative claims clear, didn’t hold appropriate evidence to support such claims and omitted material information about the environmental impact of the cruises they sold.

  • TravelCircle Ltd t/a Cruise Circle

    • Upheld
    • Website (own site)
    • 03 September 2025

    A webpage advertising cruise operator failed to make the basis of environmental and comparative claims clear and didn’t substantiate the environmental claims made in relation to the full life cycle of a cruise.

Informally resolved (1)
  • Toolport GmbH t/a House of Tents

    • 06 November 2024
    • Number of complaints: 1

    Topic: Home and garden