-
Bubbleology UK-I Ltd t/a Bubbleology
A paid-for Instagram ad for a bubble tea company didn’t break the less healthy food rules because it was a small and medium-sized enterprise and was therefore exempt.
-
Dignity Funerals Ltd t/a Simplicity Cremations
Two TV ads for a funeral provider didn’t make clear that the funeral plans advertised were for non-attended cremations only.
-
Domino's Pizza UK & Ireland Ltd t/a Domino's
A TV ad, Video on Demand ad and a YouTube ad for Domino’s broke the rules by featuring an identifiable less healthy food product.
-
Higham Miller Coffee Ltd t/a Exhale Healthy Coffee
A paid-for Instagram ad for a coffee company made unauthorised health and nutrition claims and included health claims that referred to the recommendation of an individual health professional.
-
McDonald's Restaurants Ltd t/a McDonald's
A TV ad for McDonalds didn’t break the rules by featuring an identifiable less healthy product.
-
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...
-
Domino's Pizza UK & Ireland Ltd t/a Domino's
Two paid-for social media ads for Domino’s pizza didn’t break the rules by featuring an identifiable less healthy product.
-
Grain Connect Ltd
An email from a broadband company made misleading price rise claims about an identifiable competitor.
-
Kentucky Fried Chicken (Great Britain) Ltd t/a KFC
A TV ad, Video on Demand and three paid-for social media ads for KFC didn’t break the rules by featuring an identifiable less healthy product.
-
Mars Wrigley Confectionery UK Ltd t/a Mars
A paid-for Instagram ad for M&M’s broke the rules by featuring an identifiable less healthy food product through the inclusion of a character that depicted a specific less healthy food product.
-
Papa John's (GB) Ltd t/a Papa Johns
A paid for Facebook ad for Papa John’s didn’t break the rules by featuring an identifiable less healthy product.
-
S&E1 Ltd t/a Morley's Woking
A paid-for Instagram ad for Morley’s broke the rules by featuring an identifiable less healthy food product.
-
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.
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 (251)