-
Manchestersalerent.co.uk
A house listing on an estate agent’s website was banned as the property was no longer available for purchase.
-
Microlyscs LLC t/a The Crazy Cap
A Facebook post promoting a bottle cap was banned for implying that it could kill all bacteria, viruses and pathogens without holding evidence to substantiate the claim.
-
OverStreet.co.uk
A house listing on an estate agent’s website was banned as the property was no longer available for purchase.
-
Unilever UK Ltd
A paid-for Facebook post by Boots was banned for implying that a lotion product could protect babies’ skin microbiome without holding sufficient evidence to demonstrate that this was the case.
-
Flights & Holidays UK Ltd
A website ad for an online travel agency was banned for making a misleading price claim for a flight from London to Orlando.
-
In The Style Fashion Ltd t/a In the Style
A website and Instagram post by an online fashion retailer were banned for implying that all their products were included in an offer when this was not actually the case.
-
Yoo Delivery Company Ltd
A Facebook post for a delivery company was banned for promoting cigarettes as advertising tobacco products is prohibited by the CAP Code.
-
L(A)B Life and Beauty
A website post and three Facebook posts by a skin and healthcare company were banned for claiming its belt product could help consumers lose weight without substantial evidence to support the claim.
-
Lidl Great Britain Ltd
Two leaflets, a website, and two newspaper ads for Lidl products were banned for quoting unsubstantiated RRP claims.
-
KS Competitions Ltd
A website ad promoting a competition to win hair products breached the CAP Code for not explaining the free entry route and for stating that its closing date would be extended if all tickets were not sold.
-
SCA Investments Ltd t/a Gousto
A website ad for the meal subscription service Gousto misleadingly stated that their packaging was 100% plastic free and misleadingly stated that it was 100% recyclable.
-
Rightio Ltd
A paid-for Google Ad for a plumbing service misleadingly stated that a call-out charge did not apply for diagnostic work carried out by engineers.
-
ContextLogic Inc t/a Wish.com
A paid-for ad on Facebook was irresponsible for portraying a model who was under 18 years of age in a sexual manner.
-
ContextLogic Inc t/a Wish.com
Facebook ads for an online retailer, Wish.com, were irresponsible for appearing to direct ads for restricted firearms and knives to a general audience.
-
Person(s) unknown t/a TBM Enterprises and Thebettingman
An Instagram story by Sam Gowland was not obviously identifiable as an ad and broke the rules on social responsibility for suggesting using betting tipsters was a way of achieving financial security.
-
TUI UK Ltd
Claims on a travel and tourism company website for hotel rooms were not misleading.
-
Jemella Ltd t/a GHD
A TikTok post by Emily Canham about a GHD branded hairdryer was banned for not being obviously identifiable as an ad.
-
Town Force Ltd
A website ad for a plumbing service was banned for misleadingly stating that they did not charge a call-out fee when it was their policy to do so.
-
LC International Ltd t/a Gala Spins
A paid-for Facebook post by a gambling company was banned for being of particular appeal to children.
-
Profit Accumulator Ltd t/a Bonus Accumulator
A paid-for Facebook post and a website post for a betting company were banned for presenting gambling as a way to achieve financial security, for being misleading and for being socially irresponsible.
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 (98)