-
Bubbleology UK-I Ltd t/a Bubbleology
A paid-for Instagram ad for a bubble tea company didn’t break the less healthy food rules because it was a small and medium-sized enterprise and was therefore exempt.
-
Domino's Pizza UK & Ireland Ltd t/a Domino's
A TV ad, Video on Demand ad and a YouTube ad for Domino’s broke the rules by featuring an identifiable less healthy food product.
-
McDonald's Restaurants Ltd t/a McDonald's
A TV ad for McDonalds didn’t break the rules by featuring an identifiable less healthy product.
-
Domino's Pizza UK & Ireland Ltd t/a Domino's
Two paid-for social media ads for Domino’s pizza didn’t break the rules by featuring an identifiable less healthy product.
-
Kentucky Fried Chicken (Great Britain) Ltd t/a KFC
A TV ad, Video on Demand and three paid-for social media ads for KFC didn’t break the rules by featuring an identifiable less healthy product.
-
Mars Wrigley Confectionery UK Ltd t/a Mars
A paid-for Instagram ad for M&M’s broke the rules by featuring an identifiable less healthy food product through the inclusion of a character that depicted a specific less healthy food product.
-
Papa John's (GB) Ltd t/a Papa Johns
A paid for Facebook ad for Papa John’s didn’t break the rules by featuring an identifiable less healthy product.
-
S&E1 Ltd t/a Morley's Woking
A paid-for Instagram ad for Morley’s broke the rules by featuring an identifiable less healthy food product.
-
Uber Eats UK Ltd t/a Uber Eats
A Video on Demand pause ad for Uber Eats didn’t break the rules by featuring an identifiable less healthy 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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
Optimize Business Ltd t/a SoulTalk
A paid-for TikTok ad for an AI-friends chat app was socially irresponsible and caused serious and widespread offence, including by objectifying and sexualising women and featuring a harmful gender stereotype.
-
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.
-
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.
-
Betway Ltd t/a Betway
An Instagram post for Betway featuring Thierry Henry wasn’t likely to be of strong appeal to under-18s.
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 (32)