-
Amazon Europe Core Sarl t/a Amazon.co.uk
A paid-for Instagram ad for Amazon Fresh UK broke the rules by featuring an identifiable less healthy food product.
-
Beauty Pie Ltd t/a Beauty Pie Ltd
A poster for an LED face mask made misleading claims that it was clinically proven to reduce wrinkles in 4 weeks.
-
Dribble Media Ltd t/a Midnite
A TikTok post on Mia Mon’s account promoting an online betting platform didn’t feature someone who was likely to be of strong appeal to under-18s.
-
Fortore Ltd
A paid-for Facebook ad for an investment competition website failed to make clear that gold and precious metal investment was unregulated and that the value of investments was variable.
-
Montford Group Ltd t/a Brittania Bullion
A paid-for LinkedIn ad for a gold investment company failed to make clear that physical gold investment was unregulated and that the value of investments was variable.
-
RE/MAX Property Specialists t/a Billie Dunlop
A leaflet and a Facebook post for an estate agency service made misleading and unverifiable comparisons with identifiable competitors.
-
Rosland Capital Ltd
A paid-for Facebook ad for a gold and precious metal specialist failed to make clear that gold and precious metal investment was unregulated and that the value of investments was variable.
-
Sourced Consultancy Ltd t/a Oak & Mason
A paid-for Meta ad for a gold investment company failed to make clear that physical gold investment was unregulated and that the value of investments was variable. The ad also broke the rules by referencing an example of past performance that was unrepresentative.
-
Tarvos Ltd t/a 7879
A paid-for Meta ad for an online retailer of gold and platinum jewellery failed to make clear that physical gold and precious metal investment was unregulated and that the value of investments was variable.
-
Brighton & Hove City Council
A digital poster misleadingly implied there was a direct causal link between the use of wood burners and open fires and an increase in particle pollution, without having suitable evidence to back this claim up.
-
DUSK (Retail) Ltd t/a DUSK
Four webpages for an online bed retailer made misleading savings claims.
-
Wowcher Ltd t/a Wowcher
A promotion on the Wowcher website wasn’t administered fairly and caused unnecessary disappointment.
-
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.
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 (220)