-
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.
-
Glow Up LLC t/a Maxxing
Two paid-for Meta ads for an AI powered app to maximise physical attractiveness misleadingly exaggerated the effectiveness of the product, were irresponsible and included gender stereotypes that were likely to cause harm.
-
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.
-
PLK Chicken UK Ltd t/a Popeyes
An Instagram ad by @onlyscrans and a paid-for Instagram ad for Popeyes didn’t break the rules by featuring an identifiable less healthy food product.
-
SheMed Ltd
A paid-for Reddit ad for a female-focused medical weight-loss service promoted weight-loss prescription-only medicines to the public, against the law and our rules, was likely to exploit consumers’ insecurities relating to body image and weight and was irresponsible.
-
The Monty Bojangles Co Ltd t/a 1st Floor Legion House
A paid-for Instagram ad for Monty Bojangles didn’t break the less healthy food rules because it was a small and medium-sized enterprise and was therefore exempt.
-
BioIdentical Hormone Therapy Ltd t/a BioID Health
Two paid-for Facebook ads for a hormone health consultant made misleading claims that they could provide more effective tests and services for low testosterone than GPs and were irresponsible by implying that GPs were insufficiently thorough.
-
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.
-
Stacey’s World Rocks
A Telegram post on the Stacey’s World Rocks account was socially irresponsible by encouraging people not to pay household bills.
-
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.
-
Ferrero UK Ltd t/a Thorntons
A paid-for Instagram ad for Thorntons didn’t break the rules by featuring an identifiable less healthy food product.
-
The Boots Company PLC t/a Boots
A national press ad for Boots featured a promotion that wasn’t administered fairly and caused participants unnecessary disappointment.
-
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.
-
Warner Bros Entertainment UK Ltd
A TV ad and two posters for the film They Will Kill You weren’t irresponsible or offensive and didn’t glamourise violence and knife crime. The ads were suitable for display in an untargeted medium, had suitable scheduling restrictions and hasn’t been inappropriately placed during a UEFA Champions Leag...
-
Warner Bros Entertainment UK Ltd
Posters for the film Lee Cronin’s The Mummy were likely to cause fear or distress to young children and were unsuitable for outdoor display. Two other ads were investigated but they didn’t break our rules.
-
Airbrush
Two paid-for Facebook ads and a website for a hairstyling company misleadingly implied they were endorsed by fashion brands, used unrelated influencer content to promote their product and didn’t have evidence to show that testimonials were genuine.
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 (247)