Rulings (311)
  • Animcha Ltd t/a tyan.ai

    • Upheld
    • Social media (paid ad)
    • 16 September 2026

    A paid-for Meta ad for an AI companion generator app was socially irresponsible and caused serious or widespread offence, including by featuring a harmful gender stereotype that objectified and sexualised women. The ad also portrayed someone who was or appeared to be under 18 years of age in a sexual way.

  • Dribble Media Ltd t/a Midnite

    • Upheld
    • Social media (paid ad)
    • 16 September 2026

    A paid-for TikTok ad for Midnite featured someone who was or seemed to be under 25 gambling and playing a significant role in the ad.

  • Guangxi Baise Tianyi Agricultural Development Co Ltd t/a Nexaipic - AI Portrait Generation Tool

    • Upheld
    • Social media (paid ad)
    • 16 September 2026

    Two paid-for Meta ads for an AI portrait generation tool were socially irresponsible and caused serious or widespread offence, including by featuring a harmful gender stereotype that objectified and sexualised women. 

  • McCain Foods (GB) Ltd t/a McCain Foodservice Solutions

    • Upheld
    • Social media (paid ad)
    • 16 September 2026

    A paid-for Facebook ad for McCain Foods and Five Akhi’s restaurants broke the rules by featuring an identifiable less healthy food product.

  • Persons unknown t/a KH31 DD22

    • Upheld
    • Social media (paid ad)
    • 16 September 2026

    A paid-for Meta ad for an AI image-to-video generator app was socially irresponsible and caused serious or widespread offence, including by featuring a harmful gender stereotype that objectified and sexualised women.

  • Pimlico Plumbers Ltd t/a Pimlico

    • Not upheld
    • Website (own site)
    • 16 September 2026

    A website for Pimlico Plumbers that made ‘24/7 service’ claims wasn’t misleading.

  • Rusto AI-AI Photo Toolbox t/a Rusto AI

    • Upheld
    • Social media (paid ad)
    • 16 September 2026

    A paid-for Meta ad for an AI image generator tool was socially irresponsible and caused serious or widespread offence, including by featuring a harmful gender stereotype that objectified and sexualised women. 

  • Sinosea Technology PTE Ltd t/a PictoPop

    • Upheld
    • Social media (paid ad)
    • 16 September 2026

    A paid-for Meta ad for an AI image-to-video generation app was socially irresponsible and caused serious or widespread offence, including by featuring a harmful gender stereotype that objectified and sexualised women.

  • Tilray Brands UK Ltd t/a BrewDog

    • Upheld
    • Social media (paid ad)
    • 16 September 2026

    Two paid-for Facebook posts for BrewDog were socially irresponsible and encouraged the excessive consumption of alcohol. The ads also portrayed alcohol as capable of changing mood.

  • White Hat Gaming Ltd t/a Casimba and The Grand Ivy Casino

    • Not upheld
    • Internet (display)
    • 16 September 2026

    Two web display ads for gambling sites and a website weren’t directed at under-18s. 

  • Hemios

    • Upheld
    • Social media (paid ad), Internet (display)
    • 09 September 2026

    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

    • Upheld
    • Social media (paid ad)
    • 09 September 2026

    A paid-for Meta ad for a travel agent didn’t make the basis for their environmental claims clear.

  • OneStream Ltd

    • Upheld
    • Website (own site)
    • 09 September 2026

    A website for OneStream didn’t make clear that their broadband packages included free trials that automatically renewed for a fee.

  • Smart Gravity Ltd t/a top10onlinecasinoreviews.co.uk

    • Upheld
    • Search (paid)
    • 09 September 2026

    A paid-for search ad for a gambling comparison website was not targeted responsibly.

  • Thomas Cook Tourism (UK) Company Ltd t/a Thomas Cook

    • Upheld
    • Search (paid)
    • 09 September 2026

    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

    • Upheld
    • Search (paid)
    • 09 September 2026

    Two paid-for Google ads for loveholidays didn’t make the basis for their environmental claims clear.

  • ATR Brands Ltd t/a Antler

    • Upheld
    • 02 September 2026

    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

    • Upheld
    • Website (own site)
    • 02 September 2026

    A product page on the Sports Direct website made misleading claims about reference price and associated savings.

  • Glow Up LLC t/a Maxxing

    • Upheld
    • Social media (paid ad)
    • 02 September 2026

    Two paid-for Meta ads for an AI powered app to maximise physical attractiveness misleadingly exaggerated the effectiveness of the product, were irresponsible and included gender stereotypes that were likely to cause harm. 

  • Kind Patches Ltd

    • Upheld
    • Social media (paid ad)
    • 02 September 2026

    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.