-
BetterYou Ltd t/a Better You
A magazine ad for a supplement company made misleading claims that their product delivered vitamin D “quickly” and enabled fast absorption of vitamin D into the body.
-
HealthTracker Apps t/a Blood Pressure Monitor App
Two paid-for in-app ads for a health app made medical claims for a product that wasn’t registered as a medical device and misleadingly implied that their app could monitor blood pressure and heart rate.
-
Hume Health LLC t/a HumeHealth
Three paid-for YouTube ads and a paid-for Facebook ad for Hume Health made medical claims for products that weren’t registered as medical devices, discouraged essential treatment for conditions for which medical supervision should be sought and exaggerated the capabilities of their products.
-
MN2S Management Ltd t/a MN2S
A website for a talent agency misleadingly stated that Seph Lawless was represented by the agency and was available to be booked through them.
-
Novabeyond Ltd t/a Blood Pressure-Monitor Tracker App
An in-app ad and a paid-for Google ad for a health app made medical claims for a product that wasn’t registered as a medical device and made misleading claims that their product could monitor blood pressure.
-
P&L Studio t/a Blood Pressure
A paid-for in-app ad for a health app misleadingly implied that it could monitor blood pressure and heart rate.
-
Pure Cremation Funeral Planning Ltd t/a Pure Cremation
A TV ad for Pure Cremation misleadingly implied that their standard funeral plan included an attended funeral service and failed to make clear where a plan was limited to a non-attended cremation.
-
StudySmarter GmbH
Three job listings on a student resource website misleadingly implied they were genuine job vacancies and falsely implied that the advertiser was acting for purposes outside its business.
-
This is Enough Ltd
[Republished ruling] A website, LinkedIn post and GoFundMe page promoting DNA testing kits for victims of sexual assault made misleading claims about the incidence of rapes and the potential for evidence gathered using their self-testing kit to be admissible in court.
-
Beauty Pie Ltd t/a Beauty Pie Ltd
A poster for an LED face mask made misleading claims that it was clinically proven to reduce wrinkles in 4 weeks.
-
Fortore Ltd
A paid-for Facebook ad for an investment competition website failed to make clear that gold and precious metal investment was unregulated and that the value of investments was variable.
-
Montford Group Ltd t/a Brittania Bullion
A paid-for LinkedIn ad for a gold investment company failed to make clear that physical gold investment was unregulated and that the value of investments was variable.
-
RE/MAX Property Specialists t/a Billie Dunlop
A leaflet and a Facebook post for an estate agency service made misleading and unverifiable comparisons with identifiable competitors.
-
Rosland Capital Ltd
A paid-for Facebook ad for a gold and precious metal specialist failed to make clear that gold and precious metal investment was unregulated and that the value of investments was variable.
-
Sourced Consultancy Ltd t/a Oak & Mason
A paid-for Meta ad for a gold investment company failed to make clear that physical gold investment was unregulated and that the value of investments was variable. The ad also broke the rules by referencing an example of past performance that was unrepresentative.
-
Tarvos Ltd t/a 7879
A paid-for Meta ad for an online retailer of gold and platinum jewellery failed to make clear that physical gold and precious metal investment was unregulated and that the value of investments was variable.
-
Brighton & Hove City Council
A digital poster misleadingly implied there was a direct causal link between the use of wood burners and open fires and an increase in particle pollution, without having suitable evidence to back this claim up.
-
DUSK (Retail) Ltd t/a DUSK
Four webpages for an online bed retailer made misleading savings claims.
-
Wowcher Ltd t/a Wowcher
A promotion on the Wowcher website wasn’t administered fairly and caused unnecessary disappointment.
-
Guangzhoushi Yingyi Maoyi Youxiangongsi t/a LANPN
An Instagram post on Gemma Markland’s account wasn’t obviously identifiable as an ad.
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 (211)