Rulings (91)
  • Cosmos Oyun Yazilim Sanayi Ticaret Ltd Sirketi t/a Filter AI

    • Upheld
    • In-game (apps)
    • 02 July 2025

    An in-game ad was socially irresponsible and caused serious offence, including by featuring a harmful gender stereotype that objectified women.

  • Good Guru Ltd t/a Protein World

    • Upheld
    • Email
    • 02 July 2025

    An email made claims that a food could treat anorexia.

  • LEBOM Ltd

    • Upheld
    • Social media (paid ad)
    • 02 July 2025

    A paid-for Facebook ad and a paid-for X ad encouraged gambling behaviour that was socially irresponsible and encouraged excessive drinking.

  • Mondelez UK Ltd t/a Cadbury

    • Upheld
    • Radio
    • 02 July 2025

    A radio ad made nutrition and comparative nutrition claims that didn’t meet the conditions of use for those claims.

  • Wuxi Zhan'ao E-commerce Co Ltd t/a Lpows.com

    • Upheld
    • Website (paid ad)
    • 02 July 2025

    A paid-for YouTube ad featured a gender stereotype that was likely to cause harm or serious offence.

  • Guardian News and Media Ltd

    • Not upheld
    • 25 June 2025

    A pop-up banner ad was unlikely to cause serious or widespread offence and wasn’t irresponsibly targeted.

  • HOMA Games SAS

    • Upheld
    • 25 June 2025

    An in-game ad was socially irresponsible and caused serious or widespread offence, including by featuring a harmful stereotype by objectifying women.

  • Honeytech Ltd t/a Honeytoon

    • Upheld
    • 25 June 2025

    Two paid-for X ads were socially irresponsible, featured harmful gender stereotypes and caused serious or widespread offence, including referencing incest, featuring scenes that depicted women as objects of sexual gratification and trivialising sexual assault.

  • Koi Footwear Ltd

    • Upheld
    • Email
    • 18 June 2025

    An email was socially irresponsible and likely to cause serious and widespread offence by condoning drug use.

  • CLF Distribution Ltd

    • Upheld
    • Email
    • 11 June 2025

    An email misleadingly claimed that products only contained “naturally sweet ingredients”.

  • Diesel SpA t/a Diesel

    • Upheld in part
    • Website (paid ad)
    • 11 June 2025

    A paid-for ad featuring Katie Price was irresponsible and likely to cause serious offence by objectifying and sexualising women.

  • Mars Wrigley Confectionery UK Ltd

    • Upheld
    • Television, Video on demand
    • 11 June 2025

    A TV and Video on Demand ad condoned unsafe driving.

  • AirDoctor LLC t/a AmazingAir

    • Upheld
    • 28 May 2025

    A post on the health.detective Garstang Health Food Store’s TikTok account wasn't obviously identifiable as an ad and made medical claims for an unlicensed product.

  • Neilson Financial Services Ltd t/a British Seniors

    • Not upheld
    • 28 May 2025

    A TV ad didn't show an infant in an unsafe sleep position.   

  • UAB Convenity t/a Huusk

    • Upheld
    • 28 May 2025

    A TV ad for Huusk Knives was irresponsibly scheduled. 

  • Viva Research Ltd t/a Vivanmn

    • Upheld
    • Social media (paid ad)
    • 28 May 2025

    Two paid-for Facebook ads claimed that a food supplement could treat or cure ADHD, made medicinal claims for an unlicensed product and made unauthorised specific health claims. 

  • air up GmbH

    • Upheld
    • Social media (paid ad)
    • 28 May 2025

    A paid-for TikTok ad was irresponsible and likely to cause serious or widespread offense.

  • GreenPixel Ltd t/a Hotel Merge Empire

    • Upheld
    • Game (mobile/app)
    • 21 May 2025

    An in-game ad was likely to cause serious or widespread offence, including by condoning domestic violence.

  • Phusion Projects LLC t/a FourLoko

    • Upheld
    • Social media (own site)
    • 21 May 2025

    An Instagram ad was socially irresponsible and encouraged people to adopt an unwise drinking style. 

  • ZOE Ltd t/a Zoe

    • Upheld
    • 21 May 2025

    A paid-for Facebook ad misleadingly claimed that a supplement didn't contain any ultra-processed ingredients.