-
Assured Food Standards t/a Red Tractor
A TV ad for Assured Food Standard’s Red Tractor Scheme failed to make clear exactly which standards it was referring to, or the degree to which those standards were being met when using the claim “farmed with care” in conjunction with “all our standards are met.”
-
Charlie Johnson
Two paid-for social media ads by Charlie Johnson, a business coach in the fitness industry, misleadingly implied that claimed lifestyle and earning results were typical and that a promotion was time limited when this wasn’t the case.
-
Grant Cardone Training Technologies Inc t/a Grant Cardone
A paid-for Facebook ad for an online business event by businessman Grant Cardone misleadingly implied that claimed earnings results were typical.
-
Jessica Crane Ltd
A paid-for Facebook and Instagram ad for a wealth and business coach company, run by Jessica Crane, misleadingly implied that lifestyle and earnings results were typical, misled in relation to the content of training material available for free and made unsubstantiated claims about the number of top salon owners using ...
-
Procter & Gamble UK t/a Ariel
A TV ad for Ariel laundry pods made an unsubstantiated claim that their product was as effective at cleaning clothes as other products, or when used in combination with laundry additives, and made unverifiable comparisons with identifiable competitors.
-
Robbins Research International Inc t/a Tony Robbins
A paid-for Facebook post by Tony Robbins advertising a business coaching course misleadingly implied that claimed earnings results were typical.
-
Self Made Girl Boss Ltd
A paid-for Instagram post for a business coaching company, misleadingly implied that stated lifestyle and earning results were typical, included qualifications that contradicted the claims that they qualified, and failed to make the distinction between free and priced items clear.
-
Community Fibre Ltd
Two pages on the Community Fibre website misleadingly implied that they were the number one rated for internet provider and that they had the most 5 star reviews on third party website.
-
Hammonds Furniture Ltd t/a Hammonds
A banner ad and a page on the Hammonds Furniture website, misleadingly implied that discount offers were time limited and also made unsubstantiated and unverifiable comparative claims with identifiable competitors.
-
BCCR Ltd t/a Belief Coding Cognitive Rewiring
Two posts on Jessica Cunningham’s Facebook page advertising belief coding discouraged essential treatment for conditions for which medical supervision should be sought and made unsubstantiated claims for the efficacy of belief coding in treating health conditions.
-
Shell Energy UK
A paid-for LinkedIn ad for Shell Energy didn't give a misleading impression of the overall environmental impact of Shell’s business activities.
-
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.
-
Jones Whyte Law Ltd t/a Jones Whyte
A website and paid-for Facebook ad for James Whyte, relating to group action compensation claims for people who had been affected by a data breach, failed to present material information clearly and also omitted material information.
-
KP Law Ltd
A website and a paid-for Facebook ad for Join the Claim, relating to group action compensation claims by people who had been affected by a data breach, falsely implied that the advertiser was acting for purposes outside its business, didn’t make their commercial intent clear, didn’t present material informa...
-
Marble Muse
A website for a clothing company misleadingly implied that they were UK based and omitted the identity and geographical address of the company.
-
Alibaba.com Singapore E-commerce Private Ltd t/a AliExpress
An email and paid-for Google search ad for AliExpress made misleading price statements.
-
Alibaba.com Singapore E-commerce Private Ltd t/a AliExpress
A paid-for Facebook ad for the AliExpress shopping app was misleading by showing a product as part of a promotion when it was not actually available at the price stated.
-
Gorgeous Shard Puzzle Studio
An in-game ad for a mobile game app was socially irresponsible and likely to cause serious and widespread offence, including by objectifying and sexualising women and featuring a harmful gender stereotype.
-
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.
-
L'Oréal (UK) Ltd t/a La Roche – Posay
A product listing on the La Roche Posay website didn’t provide sufficient information to allow consumers to verify comparisons with identifiable competitors. We also investigated whether the ad made unsubstantiated claims but didn’t find it to be in breach of the rules.
-
Toolport GmbH t/a House of Tents
Topic: Home and garden