-
Betway Ltd t/a Betway
An Instagram post for Betway featuring Thierry Henry wasn’t likely to be of strong appeal to under-18s.
-
Cyan Blue Odds Ltd t/a Oddschecker
Two Instagram posts for an online betting platform featuring Harry Kane and Erling Haaland were likely to be of strong appeal to under-18s.
-
Guangzhoushi Yingyi Maoyi Youxiangongsi t/a LANPN
An Instagram post on Gemma Markland’s account wasn’t obviously identifiable as an ad.
-
Menwell Ltd t/a Voy
Three emails for an online pharmacy promoted prescription-only medicines to the public against the law and our rules. The ads were also socially irresponsible by creating an undue sense of urgency for people who were considering medicated weight-loss programmes.
-
linyixiansanrenwangluokejiyouxiangongsi t/a IDJRDDF
A product listing on Amazon featured a gender stereotype that was likely to cause harm or serious offence.
-
Boots UK Ltd t/a boots.com
An online display ad for Boots made misleading savings claims. Another ad was investigated but it didn’t break the rules.
-
DBZ Marketplace Online Ltd t/a Debenhams
Two video display banners for Debenhams made misleading savings claims.
-
John Lewis plc
A paid-for Facebook ad and an online display ad for John Lewis made misleading savings claims.
-
Perrin Et Fils SAS t/a La Vieille Ferme
A paid-for TikTok ad for a wine company irresponsibly implied that alcohol had therapeutic qualities, portrayed alcohol as being capable of changing your mood and a source of nourishment and made health claims. The ad was also socially irresponsible by encouraging excessive drinking.
-
Shop Direct Home Shopping Ltd t/a Very
Two website pages for Very made misleading savings claims.
-
SnackVerse Ltd
A webpage for a snack subscription box misleadingly implied their subscribers would receive a specific country-themed box but didn’t make clear this was subject to allocation conditions.
-
This is Enough Ltd
A website, LinkedIn post and GoFundMe page promoting DNA testing kits for victims of sexual assault made misleading claims about the incidence of rapes and the potential for evidence gathered using their self-testing kit to be admissible in court.
-
VAM Apps Co t/a The Coach
A paid-for YouTube ad for a men’s health app was likely to cause serious and widespread offence.
-
111 Skin Ltd t/a 111skin
A product listing for a skincare product misleadingly exaggerated the effects of a cosmetic product for ageing skin.
-
Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board t/a AHDB
Two national press ads made claims about the carbon footprints of beef and milk that weren’t supported with full life cycle evidence. Two other issues were investigated in relation to TV ads, an Instagram post, and a website page but they didn’t break the rules.
-
Course Accreditation Ltd
A website and a paid-for Google search ad for an accreditation company didn’t provide suitable evidence to back up objective claims, including comparative claims. The ads also misleadingly implied their accreditation was recognised by insurers and that t...
-
Linjer Ltd
Two paid-for Google ads for a jewellery retailer didn’t make clear that their diamonds were synthetic.
-
Novita Diamonds Ltd t/a Novita Diamonds
Two paid-for Meta ads for a jewellery retailer didn’t make clear that their diamonds were synthetic.
-
Bestway Retail Ltd t/a Bargain Booze
A paid-for Facebook ad for an alcohol retailer irresponsibly implied that alcohol could overcome loneliness.
-
GLP-1 Pro Ltd t/a GuLP-1
Two webpages for a food supplement company made claims that a supplement could prevent, treat or cure human disease and made unauthorised health and medicinal claims. The ads also compared the effects of a food supplement to those associated with weight-loss prescr...
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 (214)