-
Supreme CBD Ltd
A post for SupremeCBD on Anthony Fowler’s Instagram account implied that a food supplement could prevent, treat or cure chronic anxiety and depression. It also discouraged essential treatment for conditions for which medical supervision should be sought.
-
Betway Ltd
A pre-roll ad on YouTube for Betway featured the Chelsea FC logo in a manner which was likely to be of strong appeal to under-18s.
-
Bonne Terre Ltd t/a Sky Bet
[Republished ruling] A promoted tweet for Sky Bet featured Gary Neville, a person who was likely to be of strong appeal to under-18s.
-
Eaton Gate Gaming Ltd t/a Kwiff
A post on Kwiff’s X account featured Sir Lewis Hamilton, a person who was likely to be of strong appeal to under-18s.
-
HW Fantasy Ltd t/a My Passion
An in-game ad for an online romantic novel service, seen in a puzzle game was socially irresponsible and likely to cause serious and widespread offence, including by trivialising violence against women.
-
Currys Group Ltd t/a Currys
A paid-for Facebook ad for Currys was misleading and socially irresponsible by implying that e-scooters could be ridden on public roads.
-
Voodoo Doll Ltd t/a MOJO Manchester
A paid-for Meta ad for a bar, which referenced alcoholic drinks, was irresponsible by being likely to have particular appeal to under-18s and by encouraging excessive drinking.
-
William Hill Organization Ltd t/a William Hill
A promotional voucher for William Hill encouraged irresponsible use.
-
Indigo Sun Retail Ltd t/a Indigo Sun
A website for a sunbed tanning salon company made misleading and irresponsible claims about the health benefits that could be obtained from the use of sunbeds.
-
Easytek Ltd t/a Vape Superstore
A website for a vape retailer misleadingly implied that their products had been tested and endorsed by the Medicines and Healthcare Regulatory Agency.
-
Imperial Tobacco Ltd t/a Rizla UK
A paid-for Facebook ad for Rizla UK was socially irresponsible and condoned the use of illegal drugs by trivialising recreational drug use.
-
CTW Inc
Three paid-for YouTube ads for a video-game company were socially irresponsible, likely to cause serious or widespread offence and featured harmful gender stereotypes by objectifying and sexualising women. The ads also portrayed someone who appeared to be under 18 in a sexual way.
-
BrewDog plc
A poster broke the strict alcohol advertising rules because it implied that alcohol could overcome boredom, loneliness or other problems.
-
Inkitt GmbH t/a Inkitt
An in-app ad was not appropriately targeted and contained scenes that condoned sexually violent behaviour and were likely to cause serious and widespread offence.
-
Pheon Inc
An in-game ad and a paid-for social media ad for an AI Chat Bot, portrayed the character as under-18 and was likely to cause serious or widespread offence by stereotyping women as sexual objects.
-
Marks and Spencer plc
A page within the Marks and Spencer app was socially irresponsible by portraying a model as unhealthily thin. A website, email and second app page were also investigated but did not break the rules.
-
Asos.com Ltd
An in-app ad for a clothing company, was not irresponsible and did not promote an unhealthy body image.
-
Mecca Bingo Ltd
A Facebook post featuring emojis for a game to guess film names, wasn't likely to be of strong appeal to under-18s.
-
Play’n GO Malta Ltd
Three banner ads promoting casino gaming content were likely to have strong appeal to under-18s and were therefore irresponsible.
-
Viva!
A cinema ad for the vegan charity Viva!, featuring scenes of a human baby being taken from its mother and equating that with dairy calves being separated from their mothers, was irresponsible, distressing and likely to cause serious and widespread offence, particularly for viewers with experience of child los...
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 (64)