-
Cablelinker Electronics Ltd t/a Aquoxis
A YouTube pre-roll ad and two online display ads for a pressure washer misleadingly exaggerated the functionality of the product.
-
Paramount Pictures UK
A pre-roll YouTube ad wasn’t likely to cause serious or widespread offence.
-
Singapore New Reading Technology Pte Ltd t/a GoodNovel
An in-game ad for an online reading platform was socially irresponsible, condoned violence, included harmful gender stereotypes and was likely to cause harm or serious and widespread offence.
-
Take-Two Interactive Software Inc t/a Take Two Interactive
An ad for the video game Borderlands 4 seen on a bus, didn’t omit material information.
-
Videoslots Ltd t/a Mr Vegas
A paid-for Facebook ad for a gambling company featured imagery that was likely to be of strong appeal to under-18s.
-
YN Netcom Ltd t/a BeeHome
A paid-for Facebook ad for a cordless pressure washer misleadingly exaggerated the functionality of the product and claimed they had a high rating based on customer reviews when this was not the case.
-
Adidas UK Ltd t/a adidas
A paid-for Google ad for adidas made misleading environmental claims.
-
Argos Limited t/a Argos
A page in the Argos 2025 Christmas gift guide featuring the video game Call of Duty: Black Ops 7 failed to make clear that the game contained loot boxes. Another ad was investigated but it didn’t break the rules.
-
Big Fang Collective Ltd t/a Golf Fang
A leaflet for an indoor golf venue didn’t make clear it was an ad and caused unjustified distress by resembling a parking ticket.
-
Calvin Klein Europe BV t/a Calvin Klein
A paid-for Google ad for Calvin Klein made misleading environmental claims.
-
Express Healthcare Ltd t/a pharmacyonline.co.uk
A paid-for Meta ad and website for an online pharmacy promoted prescription-only medicines to the public, against the law and our rules.
-
Microsoft Ltd t/a Microsoft
Two digital posters for the Xbox Game Pass failed to make clear that the games shown in the posters included in game purchases.
-
Motorpoint Ltd
A paid-for Instagram ad for a used car retailer made misleading savings claims.
-
Parc AI Ltd t/a Parc
A leaflet for a car parking app didn’t make clear it was an ad and caused unjustified distress by resembling a parking ticket.
-
Patisserie Valerie Production Ltd t/a Patisserie Valerie
Three paid-for Google search ads for Patisserie Valerie didn’t break the less healthy food rules as they were a small or medium sized enterprise and therefore were exempt from the restrictions.
-
Revolut Ltd
A webpage on Revolut’s website wasn’t misleading.
-
The Clean Supps LLC t/a Inno Supps
Four paid-for Meta ads promoting supplements made claims that a food supplement could prevent, treat or cure human diseases or conditions, made unauthorised health claims and made claims that referred to a rate or amount of weight loss for food supplements. The ad also used ...
-
Uniqlo (UK) Ltd t/a UNIQLO
A paid- for Google ad for UNIQLO made misleading environmental claims.
-
Wrappiness UK
A paid-for Facebook ad for an online décor and gift retailer was likely to cause serious and widespread offence including by using explicit language and sexual references.
-
BetterYou Ltd t/a Better You
A magazine ad for a supplement company made misleading claims that their product delivered vitamin D “quickly” and enabled fast absorption of vitamin D into the body.
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 (244)