Rulings (182)
  • Accor (UK) Ltd

    • Upheld in part
    • Website (paid ad)
    • 19 November 2025

    A paid-for website ad for Accor made misleading claims about the price of hotel rooms. A second paid-for website ad was also investigated but didn’t break the rules.

  • Booking.com BV

    • Upheld
    • Search (paid)
    • 19 November 2025

    A paid-for search ad for Booking.com made misleading claims about the price of hotel rooms.

  • Butlins Skyline Ltd t/a Butlins

    • Upheld
    • Email
    • 19 November 2025

    An email promotion for Butlins wasn’t administered fairly because the closing date of the promotion was changed

  • Hilton Worldwide Ltd

    • Upheld
    • Search (paid)
    • 19 November 2025

    Two paid-for search ads for Hilton made misleading claims about the price of hotel rooms.

  • Hutch Games Ltd t/a F1 Clash

    • Upheld in part
    • In-game (apps)
    • 19 November 2025

    An app store listing and in-game storefront for the mobile game ‘F1 Clash’ failed to make clear that it contained loot boxes and misleadingly implied that people had an equal chance of winning different prizes. A third issue was investigated but didn’t break the rules.

  • Kabam Games Inc

    • Upheld
    • In-game (apps)
    • 19 November 2025

    An app store listing for the ‘Marvel Contest of Champions’ game failed to make clear that it contained loot boxes.

  • Nexters Global Ltd

    • Upheld
    • In-game (apps)
    • 19 November 2025

    An app store listing for the ‘Hero Wars: Alliance RPG’ game failed to make clear that it contained loot boxes.

  • Travelodge Hotels Ltd

    • Upheld
    • Search (paid)
    • 19 November 2025

    Two paid-for search ads for Travelodge made misleading claims about the price of hotel rooms.

  • Select Specs Ltd

    • Upheld
    • Television, Social media (own site)
    • 12 November 2025

    A TV and YouTube ad for a glasses retailer made misleading and unverifiable price comparisons with competitor products. The ads also made misleading pricing claims, including by failing to make minimum order requirements and non-optional delivery charges sufficiently clear.

  • Banquist Ltd t/a Winedrops

    • Upheld
    • Social media (paid ad), Email
    • 05 November 2025

    Two emails and a paid-for Instagram ad for an online wine retailer made misleading and unsubstantiated claims about the origin of their wine. They also failed to make clear the basis of the price comparisons and the significant conditions of the promotion.

  • On The Beach Ltd

    • Upheld
    • Website (own site), Television
    • 05 November 2025

    A TV ad and two website pages for On the Beach misleadingly implied that all consumers with eligible bookings would receive free airport lounge access.

  • Stove Industry Alliance Ltd t/a Stove Industry Association

    • Upheld
    • Website (own site)
    • 05 November 2025

    A website for the Stove Industry Association made unsubstantiated claims that modern stoves emitted significantly lower emissions than open fireplaces or older stoves, and that they were a low-emission way to heat a home. It also failed to make the basis of comparative environmental claims clear. 

  • WHG (International) Ltd t/a William Hill Online

    • Upheld
    • App (own claim)
    • 29 October 2025

    An in-app ad promoting an offer for a game in the William Hill app misleadingly contradicted the terms and conditions that applied to the offer.

  • Zzoomm plc

    • Upheld
    • Circular
    • 22 October 2025

    A circular letter for a broadband provider wasn’t obviously identifiable as marketing material and misled consumers by presenting it in a way that implied they were important notices on broadband disruption.

  • Assured Food Standards t/a Red Tractor

    • Upheld
    • Television
    • 15 October 2025

    A TV ad for Assured Food Standard’s Red Tractor Scheme failed to make clear exactly which standards it was referring to, or the degree to which those standards were being met when using the claim “farmed with care” in conjunction with “all our standards are met.”

  • Charlie Johnson

    • Upheld
    • Social media (paid ad)
    • 15 October 2025

    Two paid-for social media ads by Charlie Johnson, a business coach in the fitness industry, misleadingly implied that claimed lifestyle and earning results were typical and that a promotion was time limited when this wasn’t the case.

  • Grant Cardone Training Technologies Inc t/a Grant Cardone

    • Upheld
    • Social media (paid ad)
    • 15 October 2025

    A paid-for Facebook ad for an online business event by businessman Grant Cardone misleadingly implied that claimed earnings results were typical.

  • Jessica Crane Ltd

    • Upheld
    • Social media (paid ad), Website (own site)
    • 15 October 2025

    A paid-for Facebook and Instagram ad for a wealth and business coach company, run by Jessica Crane, misleadingly implied that lifestyle and earnings results were typical, misled in relation to the content of training material available for free and made unsubstantiated claims about the number of top salon owners using ...

  • Procter & Gamble UK t/a Ariel

    • Upheld
    • Television
    • 15 October 2025

    A TV ad for Ariel laundry pods made an unsubstantiated claim that their product was as effective at cleaning clothes as other products, or when used in combination with laundry additives, and made unverifiable comparisons with identifiable competitors.

  • Robbins Research International Inc t/a Tony Robbins

    • Upheld
    • Social media (paid ad)
    • 15 October 2025

    A paid-for Facebook post by Tony Robbins advertising a business coaching course misleadingly implied that claimed earnings results were typical.