-
Babyboo Fashion Pty Ltd t/a Babyboo Fashion
A paid-for Instagram post by an online clothing retailer was banned for being likely to cause serious or widespread offence by objectifying women.
-
Gallaher Ltd t/a JTI UK
A video ad for a nicotine pouch product was banned for implying that nicotine pouches had mood-alerting or stimulant effects which made gaming more enjoyable.
-
Missguided Ltd
An Instagram post by influencer Zara McDermott promoting Missguided products was banned for not being obviously identifiable as an ad.
-
North Wests Competitions Ltd
Two Instagram posts by an influencer promoting a free giveaway were banned for not being obviously identifiable as ads.
-
Not Guilty Food Co Ltd t/a The Skinny Food Co
A Facebook post promoting spice mixes was banned as the product’s name implied that it could help consumers lose weight.
-
Flexible Digital Solutions Ltd
A paid-for Facebook ad and a website ad for a debt advice service were banned for exaggerating the speed and ease of the process, trivialising the application process and for not stating the risks and fees associated with IVAs.
-
Grey Technology Ltd t/a Gtech
Two newspaper ads and a website ad for a vacuum cleaner were banned for implying the product could completely eliminate dust clouds without holding adequate evidence to prove this.
-
Jetsun Sunbeds
A Facebook post promoting sunbeds misleadingly and irresponsibly claimed that health benefits were obtained from the use of sunbeds.
-
Kendal Nutricare Ltd t/a Kendamil
Two Facebook ads for a formula milk manufacturer were banned for marketing infant formula, which is prohibited under the CAP Code.
-
Prettylittlething.com Ltd
A TikTok post by influencers promoting a fashion brand broke the CAP Code as it was not obviously identifiable as an ad.
-
RR Whisky Ltd
A Facebook and website ad for a whisky company were banned for irresponsibly linking the consumption of alcohol with mountaineering, an activity in which drinking would be unsafe.
-
TFLI Ltd
A paid-for Facebook ad and a website ad for a debt advice service were banned for exaggerating the speed and ease of the process, exaggerating the amount of debt that could be written off, as well as several other issues.
-
UAB Commerce Core t/a FitsWatch
A paid-for YouTube ad for a smart watch was banned for showing an Apple Watch to promote a different product. We referred the matter to CAP’s Compliance team.
-
Vauxhall Motors Ltd
A TV ad for the Vauxhall Corsa was not found to be misleading.
-
Campylite Investments Ltd
A YouTube video and blog post for a building consultant were banned for denigrating one of their competitors by claiming they were scammers.
-
DNAfit Life Sciences Ltd t/a DNAfit
A paid-for Instagram ad for a health and wellbeing company was banned for misleadingly implying they could provide consumers with effective personalised exercise and nutrition advice based on sequencing of their DNA that would result in improved health and fitness outcomes.
-
Genus UK Ltd t/a Select Fashion
Two Instagram posts by two influencers promoting a fashion company broke the CAP code as they were not obviously identifiable as ads.
-
Person(s) unknown t/a equityreleaseplus.co.uk
A paid-for website ad promoting an equity release company was banned for misleadingly implying their service was associated with Martin Lewis.
-
Bamby H2O
A pre-roll ad on YouTube for a rapper’s single, which featured drug references, nudity and strong language, was banned for being socially irresponsible and likely to cause serious and widespread offence.
-
Coinfloor Ltd
A press ad for a Bitcoin and cryptocurrency exchange was banned for irresponsibly suggesting that purchasing Bitcoin was a good or secure way to invest one’s savings or pension and for failing to make clear the risks associated with Bitcoin investments.
Rulings
Our rulings are published every Wednesday and set out on the public record how, following 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, following receipt of a complaint, agreed to amend or withdraw their ad without the need for a formal investigation.
Rulings (158)