-
Accor (UK) Ltd
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
A paid-for search ad for Booking.com made misleading claims about the price of hotel rooms.
-
Butlins Skyline Ltd t/a Butlins
An email promotion for Butlins wasn’t administered fairly because the closing date of the promotion was changed
-
Hilton Worldwide Ltd
Two paid-for search ads for Hilton made misleading claims about the price of hotel rooms.
-
Hutch Games Ltd t/a F1 Clash
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
An app store listing for the ‘Marvel Contest of Champions’ game failed to make clear that it contained loot boxes.
-
Nexters Global Ltd
An app store listing for the ‘Hero Wars: Alliance RPG’ game failed to make clear that it contained loot boxes.
-
Travelodge Hotels Ltd
Two paid-for search ads for Travelodge made misleading?claims about the price of hotel rooms.
-
Select Specs Ltd
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.
-
WHG (International) Ltd t/a William Hill Online
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
A paid-for Facebook post by Tony Robbins advertising a business coaching course misleadingly implied that claimed earnings results were typical.
-
Self Made Girl Boss Ltd
A paid-for Instagram post for a business coaching company, misleadingly implied that stated lifestyle and earning results were typical, included qualifications that contradicted the claims that they qualified, and failed to make the distinction between free and priced items clear.
-
Community Fibre Ltd
Two pages on the Community Fibre website misleadingly implied that they were the number one rated for internet provider and that they had the most 5 star reviews on third party website.
-
Hammonds Furniture Ltd t/a Hammonds
A banner ad and a page on the Hammonds Furniture website, misleadingly implied that discount offers were time limited and also made unsubstantiated and unverifiable comparative claims with identifiable competitors.
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)