-
ATR Brands Ltd t/a Antler
Two emails and a website page for a luggage retailer misleadingly implied a promotion included all products they sold, by stating a promotion related to “everything” or applied “sitewide” when this was not the case.
-
Frasers Group Trading Ltd t/a Sports Direct
A product page on the Sports Direct website made misleading claims about reference price and associated savings.
-
Kind Patches Ltd
A paid-for Instagram ad for a supplement company, misleadingly implied their products had health benefits without supporting evidence and irresponsibly trivialised and condoned an act of anti-social behaviour.
-
Hotpoint UK Appliances Ltd
A website for Hotpoint made misleading comparative claims.
-
Nutri-Paw Ltd t/a Healthy Dog
A paid-for Facebook ad for a dog dental care product misleadingly and irresponsibly implied that dogs undergoing veterinary treatment had a high chance of dying, made medicinal claims for an unauthorised product, and made misleading efficacy claims.
-
Stacey’s World Rocks
A Telegram post on the Stacey’s World Rocks account was socially irresponsible by encouraging people not to pay household bills.
-
Vir Health Ltd t/a Numan
Two paid-for Facebook ads for a digital healthcare company made misleading claims about the occurrence of low testosterone in the male population.
-
Fenix Biomed BV
A website for a human tissue donation service misleadingly implied they were based in the UK.
-
Gary Baron
A webpage for Gary Baron Counselling claimed that he was a member of the British Association for Counselling and Psychotherapy (BACP) when this wasn’t the case.
-
Nectar Sleep Ltd
The homepage for the Nectar Sleep website made misleading saving claims and didn’t make the basis of their savings claims clear. They also made comparisons against other brands’ prices without ensuring the claims were based on the actual price of the product.
-
Jaded London Ltd
An email for a clothing brand was socially irresponsible by glamourising smoking.
-
Airbrush
Two paid-for Facebook ads and a website for a hairstyling company misleadingly implied they were endorsed by fashion brands, used unrelated influencer content to promote their product and didn’t have evidence to show that testimonials were genuine.
-
Bolt Healthcare Ltd t/a Bolt Pharmacy
Two paid-for Facebook ads for an online pharmacy failed to make their commercial intent clear and falsely implied they were acting for purposes outside their trade by presenting websites used for advertising purposes as independent review sites. They also promoted weight loss prescription-only ...
-
Bolt Healthcare Ltd t/a Bolt Pharmacy
Two paid-for Facebook ads for an online pharmacy promoted weight loss prescription-only medicines to the public, against the law and our rules.
-
Utility Warehouse Ltd
A page on a mobile phone operator’s website didn’t make sure that their unlimited claims were directly qualified with the terms of their fair use policy. Another issue was investigated but it didn’t break our rules.
-
Dignity Funerals Ltd t/a Simplicity Cremations
Two TV ads for a funeral provider didn’t make clear that the funeral plans advertised were for non-attended cremations only.
-
Higham Miller Coffee Ltd t/a Exhale Healthy Coffee
A paid-for Instagram ad for a coffee company made unauthorised health and nutrition claims and included health claims that referred to the recommendation of an individual health professional.
-
EE Ltd t/a EE
A digital poster for EE didn’t make sure their comparative claims were verifiable. Another issue was also investigated but it didn’t break our rules.
-
Eurowings GmbH t/a Eurowings
A paid-for Google ad for an airline gave a misleading impression of their flights environmental impact and implied that people could pay to fully offset the carbon emissions from a specific flight without suitable evidence to support these claims.
-
Kind Patches Ltd
A paid-for Facebook ad for a supplement company made claims that a supplement patch could help with weight-loss and made medicinal claims for products that weren’t authorised by the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA). The ad was also socially irresponsible and incl...
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 (206)