-
JPD Retail Ltd t/a Harrison & James
A paid-for static YouTube ad and website for an online jewellery retailer misleadingly implied their business would close on a specific date. The ad also misleadingly described products as “free” and failed to ensure that reviews, ratings and testimonials were accurate and supported by evidence.
-
Proud & Free
A paid-for Facebook ad and website for an online jewellery brand misleadingly implied they were going to cease trading and that products were available for a limited time. The ads also misleadingly described products as “free” and failed to trading identity and business address.
-
Unicorn Brands Ltd t/a Nutrition Geeks
A paid-for Facebook ad for a supplement brand made unauthorised health and nutrition claims.
-
Care Pharma Bradford Ltd t/a The Care Pharmacy
A paid-for Google search ad for an online pharmacy promoted prescription-only medicines to the public, against the law and our rules.
-
MedExpress Enterprises Ltd t/a MedExpress
A paid-for Facebook ad for MedExpress promoted prescription-only medicines to the public, against the law and our rules.
-
Menwell Ltd t/a Do Health
Two ads for a health app incorporating a blood testing programme misleadingly implied that their blood tests could prevent and diagnose medical conditions or that their service could provide more tailored specific advice than pre-existing advice, without the evidence to support these claims.
-
Esaverwatt.com t/a StopWatt
A product listing on Amazon for a smart home energy monitoring brand misleadingly exaggerated the effectiveness of the product by making claims that it could save electricity, reduce electricity waste and lower energy bills.
-
Huel Ltd
An Instagram video and pre-roll ad on YouTube for Huel was irresponsible by encouraging the exclusive consumption of Huel in place of conventional food. The ads also made unathorised specific health claims.
-
ESTHETURK Danismanlik A.S. t/a You Clinic
A paid-for Meta ad and a paid-for Google ad for a medical clinic made misleading claims that stem cell treatment could treat or alleviate the traits associated with autism or stop the progression of autism.
-
Harnbury Holdings Ltd t/a San Carlo
An Instagram post by Pamela Olender for the restaurant San Carlo Cicchetti wasn’t obviously identifiable as an ad and broke the rules by featuring an identifiable less healthy food product.
-
Here We Flo Ltd t/a Flo
Three Instagram posts for a period product company made misleading environmental claims, including by failing to make the basis of environmental claims clear.
-
International Medical Center LLC t/a Swiss Medica
A paid-for Meta ad for a medical clinic made misleading claims that stem cell treatment could treat or alleviate the traits associated with autism.
-
Linden Clinics t/a Linden Stem Cell
A paid-for Facebook ad for a stem cell therapy clinic made misleading claims that stem cell therapy was effective in improving the traits associated with autism in children.
-
Morley's (Fast Foods) Ltd
An Instagram post by Ellie Scotney for Morley’s UK broke the rules by featuring an identifiable less healthy food product.
-
Reliable Medicare Ltd
Three product listings on the website of a medical aesthetics and skincare supplier made misleading savings claims.
-
Rumi Pulse t/a Rumi Pulse Medical Tourism Agency
A paid-for Meta ad for a medical clinic made misleading claims that stem cell treatment could treat or alleviate the traits associated with autism.
-
The Trade Desk, Inc
A promoted LinkedIn post from a media buying platform broke the rules by featuring an identifiable less healthy food.
-
Whitworths Ltd
An Instagram post on the WhitworthsUK page made unauthorised health claims and implied that a food could prevent or treat human disease.
-
Dribble Media Ltd t/a Midnite
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.
-
Pimlico Plumbers Ltd t/a Pimlico
A website for Pimlico Plumbers that made ‘24/7 service’ claims 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 (234)