-
BioIdentical Hormone Therapy Ltd t/a BioID Health
Two paid-for Facebook ads for a hormone health consultant made misleading claims that they could provide more effective tests and services for low testosterone than GPs and were irresponsible by implying that GPs were insufficiently thorough.
-
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.
-
Ferrero UK Ltd t/a Thorntons
A paid-for Instagram ad for Thorntons didn’t break the rules by featuring an identifiable less healthy food product.
-
The Boots Company PLC t/a Boots
A national press ad for Boots featured a promotion that wasn’t administered fairly and caused participants unnecessary disappointment.
-
Dribble Media Ltd t/a Midnite
Two TV ads, Two Video on Demand ads and a radio ad for Midnite, a betting app, portrayed gambling behaviour that could lead to financial, social or emotional harm and also suggested that gambling was an escape from personal problems.
-
EverAI Ltd t/a AI Realities
A paid-for Facebook ad for an AI companion app was socially irresponsible and likely to cause serious and widespread offence by including a harmful gender stereotype which objectified women.
-
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.
-
YO! Sushi UK Ltd t/a YO!
A paid-for Instagram post for YO! Sushi broke the rules by featuring an identifiable specific less healthy food product.
-
Costcutter Supermarkets Group Ltd t/a Costcutter and Mondelez Europe Services GmbH – UK branch t/a Cadbury (Mondelez)
A webpage for Costcutter and Cadburys broke the rules by featuring an identifiable less healthy food product. Another ad was investigated but it didn’t break our rules.
-
Innate-Essence Ltd t/a the Turmeric Co.
A website for a turmeric shot company made claims that a food could prevent, treat or cure human disease.
-
Warner Bros Entertainment UK Ltd
Posters for the film Lee Cronin’s The Mummy were likely to cause fear or distress to young children and were unsuitable for outdoor display. Two other ads were investigated but they didn’t break our rules.
-
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.
-
BoyleSports (Gibraltar) Ltd t/a BoyleSports
A paid-for online display ad for a gambling company encouraged gambling behaviour that was socially irresponsible and could lead to financial harm by encouraging frequent and repetitive participation.
-
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.
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 (308)