-
Birling Shore Ltd t/a ShroomIQ
A website and paid-for Facebook ad for a children’s supplement brand stated that a food supplement could prevent, treat or cure the symptoms of ADHD, Tourette Syndrome, anxiety and depression. The ads also made medicinal claims for unauthorised products, made unauthorised health claims&nb...
-
Dollead Technology Ltd
A paid-for search ad for a vacuum review website failed to make their commercial intent clear and falsely implied they were acting for purposes outside their trade by presenting websites used for marketing purposes as independent review sites.
-
Easy as HGV Ltd
Three websites for Heavy Goods Vehicle (HGV) training service providers made misleading claims about HGV test pass rates and falsely implied they were acting for purposes outside their business.
-
Ecoflow Innovation UK
A website for a sustainable energy company misleadingly claimed that their products could be installed without using a certified installer or electrician.
-
Global Health Tests Ltd t/a Check My Body Health
A website for a Bioresonance hair test misleadingly claimed that the test could comprehensively analyse body intolerances.
-
HGV Learning
A website for a Heavy Goods Vehicle (HGV) training service provider made misleading claims about HGV test pass rates.
-
HGVT Ltd
A website and pages for Heavy Goods Vehicle (HGV) training service providers made misleading claims about HGV test pass rates, the nature of a promotion and being the largest and best rated HGV training provider. The ad also falsely implied they were acting for purposes outside their business.
-
L'Oréal (UK) Ltd
A Video-On-Demand ad for a serum made misleading claims that it was clinically proven to reduce hyperpigmentation in two weeks.
-
Pets Corner UK Ltd t/a Pet Food Expert
A homepage for a website providing information about pet food falsely implied they were acting for purposes outside their trade by misleadingly presenting the website as independent.
-
Shop TJC Ltd t/a Ideal World
Two teleshopping presentations advertising watches made misleading claims about price, savings and availability.
-
Sinointeractive Digital Marketing Co Ltd t/a trustedbuyerguide.org
A paid-for search ad for a vacuum review website failed to make their commercial intent clear and falsely implied they were acting for purposes outside their trade by presenting websites used for marketing purposes as independent review sites.
-
Xinyu International Trading Ltd t/a consumertestreports.org
A paid-for search ad for a vacuum review website failed to make their commercial intent clear and falsely implied they were acting for purposes outside their trade by presenting websites used for marketing purposes as independent review sites.
-
Untamed Cat Food Ltd
An Instagram post on Untamed Cat Food’s account misleadingly made comparative claims with identifiable competitors and made misleading claims relating to the meat content of a cat’s diet and their product or rival brands.
-
Persons unknown t/a Charmfay Shop
A paid-for YouTube ad for a clothing company made misleading claims regarding a product including images and the materials used to make them.
-
Centre of CPD Excellence
A website for an accreditation company made misleading claims it had panels of specialists, independent industry experts, accreditation against internationally recognised standards and official relationships with insurance partners.
-
Grind Coffee Roasters Ltd t/a Grind
An ad on Grind’s own website for its coffee pods failed to make the basis of a price comparison clear and misrepresented their competitor product’s end-of-life arrangements.
-
Humantra UK Operations Ltd t/a Humantra
A paid-for Facebook ad for electrolyte sachets broke rules prohibit claims that state or imply a food can prevent, treat or cure human disease.
-
ZOE Ltd
[Republished ruling] A paid-for Facebook ad misleadingly claimed that a supplement didn’t contain any ultra-processed ingredients.
-
British Gas Services Ltd t/a British Gas
A paid-for Meta ad for British Gas, which promoted switching to a heat pump, didn’t have enough evidence to demonstrate that ‘up to’ saving claims could be achieved by a significant proportion of people and also failed to include all material information.
-
Centrica Hive Ltd t/a Hive
A national press ad for Hive promoting solar panels didn’t have enough evidence to demonstrate that ‘up to’ saving claims could be achieved by a significant proportion of people and also failed to include all material information.
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 (192)