-
EE Ltd t/a EE
A digital poster for EE didn’t make sure their comparative claims were verifiable. Another issue was also investigated but it didn’t break our rules.
-
Eurowings GmbH t/a Eurowings
A paid-for Google ad for an airline gave a misleading impression of their flights environmental impact and implied that people could pay to fully offset the carbon emissions from a specific flight without suitable evidence to support these claims.
-
Kind Patches Ltd
A paid-for Facebook ad for a supplement company made claims that a supplement patch could help with weight-loss and made medicinal claims for products that weren’t authorised by the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA). The ad was also socially irresponsible and incl...
-
Origin Sleep UK Ltd t/a Origin Mattress
A website for a mattress company made misleading savings claims and misleadingly implied that discount offers were time-limited and that people needed to act more quickly than necessary to take advantage of an offer.
-
Parker Products Ltd t/a ParkerBrand
A website ad for a pressure washer made misleading savings claims and stated savings against previous prices without evidence that the product was normally sold at that price.
-
Phlo Technologies Ltd
A paid-for Facebook ad promoted weight-loss prescription-only medicines to the public, against the law and our rules.
-
Qatar Airways Group QCSC t/a Qatar Airways
Two paid-for LinkedIn posts for an airline gave a misleading impression of their flights environmental impact and implied that people could pay to fully offset the carbon emissions of a specific flight without suitable evidence to support this claim.
-
Capgroup Inc Ltd
A website for a whiskey cask and gold coin investment company made misleading claims about investment returns. As well as misleadingly presenting an incorrect Trustpilot score. The ad also failed to make clear that cask whiskey investments were unregulated and that examples of past performance weren’t necessarily...
-
Grain Connect Ltd
An email from a broadband company made misleading price rise claims about an identifiable competitor.
-
Stove Industry Alliance Ltd t/a Stove Industry Association (SIA)
[Republished ruling] 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.
-
Cablelinker Electronics Ltd t/a Aquoxis
A YouTube pre-roll ad and two online display ads for a pressure washer misleadingly exaggerated the functionality of the product.
-
Take-Two Interactive Software Inc t/a Take Two Interactive
An ad for the video game Borderlands 4 seen on a bus, didn’t omit material information.
-
YN Netcom Ltd t/a BeeHome
A paid-for Facebook ad for a cordless pressure washer misleadingly exaggerated the functionality of the product and claimed they had a high rating based on customer reviews when this was not the case.
-
Adidas UK Ltd t/a adidas
A paid-for Google ad for adidas made misleading environmental claims.
-
Argos Limited t/a Argos
A page in the Argos 2025 Christmas gift guide featuring the video game Call of Duty: Black Ops 7 failed to make clear that the game contained loot boxes. Another ad was investigated but it didn’t break the rules.
-
Calvin Klein Europe BV t/a Calvin Klein
A paid-for Google ad for Calvin Klein made misleading environmental claims.
-
Express Healthcare Ltd t/a pharmacyonline.co.uk
A paid-for Meta ad and website for an online pharmacy promoted prescription-only medicines to the public, against the law and our rules.
-
Microsoft Ltd t/a Microsoft
Two digital posters for the Xbox Game Pass failed to make clear that the games shown in the posters included in game purchases.
-
Motorpoint Ltd
A paid-for Instagram ad for a used car retailer made misleading savings claims.
-
Revolut Ltd
A webpage on Revolut’s website wasn’t misleading.
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 (221)