Rulings (22)
  • UAB Convenity t/a Huusk

    • Upheld
    • 28 May 2025

    A TV ad for Huusk Knives was irresponsibly scheduled. 

  • Cloud Whale Interactive Technology

    • Upheld
    • In-game (apps)
    • 07 May 2025

    An in-game ad was socially irresponsible, likely to cause serious or widespread offence and was irresponsibly targeted

  • Pressplay Ltd

    • Upheld
    • Press other (paid ad)
    • 16 April 2025

    A press ad for anti-glare driving glasses misleadingly implied they could prevent glare while driving and could make driving safer.

  • Barclays Bank plc

    • Not upheld
    • Magazine (paid ad)
    • 09 April 2025

    A magazine ad was unlikely to give a misleading impression of Barclay’s overall contribution to carbon dioxide and greenhouse gas emissions.

  • Belle Baby Ltd

    • Upheld
    • Website (own site)
    • 09 April 2025

    A website, which featured a product listing for a swimsuit, included an image of a child portrayed in a sexual way.

  • Hutchison 3G UK Ltd t/a Three Mobile

    • Not upheld
    • National newspaper (paid ad), Social media (paid ad), Internet (website content)
    • 02 April 2025

    A national press ad, two paid-for Meta ads and a website for Three Mobile didn’t make misleading ‘best value’ claims.

  • High Seat Ltd t/a HSL

    • Upheld
    • Email, Website (own site), Leaflet
    • 12 February 2025

    A website, two emails and a leaflet didn’t make the limitations for guaranteed Christmas delivery clear.

  • Luxury Lodge Estates Company Ltd t/a Luxury Lodges

    • Upheld
    • Magazine (paid ad)
    • 12 February 2025

    A magazine ad didn’t make clear that the value of investments was variable, and that examples of past performance weren’t necessarily a guide to the future. It also failed to make the nature of a guarantee clear and didn’t include non-optional fees.

  • Next Retail Ltd t/a NEXT

    • Upheld
    • Website (own site)
    • 12 February 2025

    A product listing on the NEXT website irresponsibly portrayed a model as being unhealthily thin.

  • ACME Vape Ltd

    • Upheld in part
    • Social media (own site), Cinema (ad)
    • 04 December 2024

    A cinema ad and post seen on IVG Vape’s LinkedIn page made unsubstantiated health claims and promoted unlicensed nicotine-containing vapes in unpermitted media but wasn’t directed at people under 18 through the selection of media in which it appeared.

  • Churchill Retirement Living Ltd

    • Upheld
    • National newspaper (paid ad)
    • 04 December 2024

    A national newspaper ad failed to include the significant conditions of a promotion, including a closing date.

  • Samsung Electronics (UK) Ltd

    • Upheld
    • Internet (website content)
    • 27 November 2024

    A website promotion misleadingly described a promotional item as “free”, did not make clear promotional items would have to be purchased upfront before being redeemed via a cashback mechanism and omitted significant conditions.

  • Gold Warehouse Ltd t/a Gold Bank

    • Upheld
    • Press other (paid ad)
    • 20 November 2024

    A press ad failed to make clear that gold investment was unregulated and that the value of investments was variable.

  • Harrington & Byrne Ltd

    • Upheld
    • Press other (paid ad)
    • 20 November 2024

    A press ad failed to make clear that gold investment was unregulated, that the value of investments was variable and that examples of past performance weren’t necessarily a guide to the future.

  • Stirling Health Ltd

    • Upheld
    • Press other (paid ad)
    • 20 November 2024

    A press ad made medicinal claims for an unauthorised product.

  • Great Grass MCR Ltd t/a Great Grass

    • Upheld
    • Poster
    • 13 November 2024

    A poster was socially irresponsible and caused serious or widespread offence by featuring a harmful gender stereotype and objectifying women.  

  • Pegasus Homes Ltd t/a Pegasus Homes

    • Upheld
    • National newspaper (paid ad)
    • 13 November 2024

    A national newspaper ad for a retirement property company failed to include the significant conditions of a promotion and misleadingly omitted information regarding the price of a service charge.

  • Pegasus Homes Ltd t/a Pegasus Homes

    • Upheld
    • National newspaper (paid ad)
    • 13 November 2024

    A national newspaper ad for a retirement property company failed to include the significant conditions of a promotion.

  • Prime Star Shop Ltd t/a Branshaws

    • Upheld
    • Press other (paid ad)
    • 13 November 2024

    A press ad made medical claims for an unlicenced product which didn’t hold the relevant compliance labels.

  • Sunspot Tours Ltd t/a Mercury Holidays

    • Upheld
    • National newspaper (ad feature)
    • 02 October 2024

    A national press ad for a package holiday misleadingly described a holiday as including a "free" week.

Informally resolved (1)
  • Kentucky Fried Chicken (Great Britain) Ltd t/a KFC

    • 24 July 2024
    • Number of complaints: 0

    Topic: Food, drink and supplements