-
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.
-
White Hat Gaming Ltd t/a Casimba and The Grand Ivy Casino
Two web display ads for gambling sites and a website weren’t directed at under-18s.
-
Hemios
A paid-for Facebook ad and a paid-for YouTube display ad for a magnetic bracelet made misleading claims in relation to weight-loss and improving erectile performance.
-
Lotus Leisure Ltd t/a DialAFlight
A paid-for Meta ad for a travel agent didn’t make the basis for their environmental claims clear.
-
OneStream Ltd
A website for OneStream didn’t make clear that their broadband packages included free trials that automatically renewed for a fee.
-
Thomas Cook Tourism (UK) Company Ltd t/a Thomas Cook
A paid- for Google ad for Thomas Cook didn’t make the basis for their environmental claims clear.
-
We Love Holidays Ltd t/a loveholidays
Two paid-for Google ads for loveholidays didn’t make the basis for their environmental claims clear.
-
ATR Brands Ltd t/a Antler
Two emails and a website page for a luggage retailer misleadingly implied a promotion included all products they sold, by stating a promotion related to “everything” or applied “sitewide” when this was not the case.
-
Frasers Group Trading Ltd t/a Sports Direct
A product page on the Sports Direct website made misleading claims about reference price and associated savings.
-
Kind Patches Ltd
A paid-for Instagram ad for a supplement company, misleadingly implied their products had health benefits without supporting evidence and irresponsibly trivialised and condoned an act of anti-social behaviour.
-
Hotpoint UK Appliances Ltd
A website for Hotpoint made misleading comparative claims.
-
Nutri-Paw Ltd t/a Healthy Dog
A paid-for Facebook ad for a dog dental care product misleadingly and irresponsibly implied that dogs undergoing veterinary treatment had a high chance of dying, made medicinal claims for an unauthorised product, and made misleading efficacy claims.
-
Vir Health Ltd t/a Numan
Two paid-for Facebook ads for a digital healthcare company made misleading claims about the occurrence of low testosterone in the male population.
-
Fenix Biomed BV
A website for a human tissue donation service misleadingly implied they were based in the UK.
-
Dribble Media Ltd t/a Midnite
Two TV ads, Two Video on Demand ads and a radio ad for Midnite, a betting app, portrayed gambling behaviour that could lead to financial, social or emotional harm and also suggested that gambling was an escape from personal problems.
-
EverAI Ltd t/a AI Realities
A paid-for Facebook ad for an AI companion app was socially irresponsible and likely to cause serious and widespread offence by including a harmful gender stereotype which objectified women.
-
Gary Baron
A webpage for Gary Baron Counselling claimed that he was a member of the British Association for Counselling and Psychotherapy (BACP) when this wasn’t the case.
-
Nectar Sleep Ltd
The homepage for the Nectar Sleep website made misleading saving claims and didn’t make the basis of their savings claims clear. They also made comparisons against other brands’ prices without ensuring the claims were based on the actual price of the product.
-
YO! Sushi UK Ltd t/a YO!
A paid-for Instagram post for YO! Sushi broke the rules by featuring an identifiable specific less healthy food product.
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 (240)