-
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.
-
OneStream Ltd
A website for OneStream didn’t make clear that their broadband packages included free trials that automatically renewed for a fee.
-
Thomas Cook Tourism (UK) Company Ltd t/a Thomas Cook
A paid- for Google ad for Thomas Cook didn’t make the basis for their environmental claims clear.
-
We Love Holidays Ltd t/a loveholidays
Two paid-for Google ads for loveholidays didn’t make the basis for their environmental claims clear.
-
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.
-
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.
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 (203)