-
Boots UK Ltd t/a boots.com
An online display ad for Boots made misleading savings claims. Another ad was investigated but it didn’t break the rules.
-
DBZ Marketplace Online Ltd t/a Debenhams
Two video display banners for Debenhams made misleading savings claims.
-
John Lewis plc
A paid-for Facebook ad and an online display ad for John Lewis made misleading savings claims.
-
Shop Direct Home Shopping Ltd t/a Very
Two website pages for Very made misleading savings claims.
-
SnackVerse Ltd
A webpage for a snack subscription box misleadingly implied their subscribers would receive a specific country-themed box but didn’t make clear this was subject to allocation conditions.
-
This is Enough Ltd
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.
-
111 Skin Ltd t/a 111skin
A product listing for a skincare product misleadingly exaggerated the effects of a cosmetic product for ageing skin.
-
Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board t/a AHDB
Two national press ads made claims about the carbon footprints of beef and milk that weren’t supported with full life cycle evidence. Two other issues were investigated in relation to TV ads, an Instagram post, and a website page but they didn’t break the rules.
-
Course Accreditation Ltd
A website and a paid-for Google search ad for an accreditation company didn’t provide suitable evidence to back up objective claims, including comparative claims. The ads also misleadingly implied their accreditation was recognised by insurers and that t...
-
Linjer Ltd
Two paid-for Google ads for a jewellery retailer didn’t make clear that their diamonds were synthetic.
-
Novita Diamonds Ltd t/a Novita Diamonds
Two paid-for Meta ads for a jewellery retailer didn’t make clear that their diamonds were synthetic.
-
GLP-1 Pro Ltd t/a GuLP-1
Two webpages for a food supplement company made claims that a supplement could prevent, treat or cure human disease and made unauthorised health and medicinal claims. The ads also compared the effects of a food supplement to those associated with weight-loss prescr...
-
Medilife Clinic Enfield
A paid-for Instagram ad for a health clinic made claims that their treatments could alleviate or treat the traits of autism without suitable evidence to support these claims. The ad also discouraged essential treatment for conditions for which medical supervision should be sought.
-
The Professional Development Consortium Ltd t/a CPD Standards Office
Two paid-for Meta ads for a training accreditation company made misleading comparative claims with identifiable competitors which weren’t supported by evidence and couldn’t be verified by consumers.
-
Bakkavor Ltd
A promotion featured on the packaging of a cookie dough dessert misleadingly implied that particular products were included in the promotion, causing unnecessary disappointment.
-
Beiersdorf UK Ltd
A poster ad for Eucerin Skincare misleadingly claimed that a serum was clinically proven to make you look up to 5 years younger.
-
CC Response NW Ltd
Two paid-for Google search listings and a web landing page for an accident claims management company failed to make the nature of their service clear, misleadingly implied there was no cost to consumers and made misleading claims in relation to potential savings.
-
Exclusive Law Ltd
Three paid-for Google search listings and a website for an accident claims management company failed to make the nature of their service clear, misleadingly implied there was no cost to consumers and irresponsibly discouraged consumers from approaching their insurance provider. They also misleadingly implied that the u...
-
Gismart Ltd t/a Dancebit
A paid-for Facebook ad for a dance workout app misleadingly stated that their service was free.
-
iRevolution Claims Ltd
Three Google search listings and a website for an accident claims management company failed to make the nature of their service clear and misleadingly implied there was no cost to consumers.
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 (201)