Rulings (107)
  • Babyboo Fashion Pty Ltd t/a Babyboo Fashion

    • Upheld
    • Social media (paid ad)
    • 14 April 2021

    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

    • Upheld in part
    • VOD
    • 14 April 2021

    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

    • Upheld
    • Social media (influencer or affiliate ad)
    • 14 April 2021

    An Instagram post by influencer Zara McDermott promoting Missguided products was banned for not being obviously identifiable as an ad.

  • North Wests Competitions Ltd

    • Upheld
    • Social media (influencer or affiliate ad)
    • 14 April 2021

    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

    • Upheld
    • Social media (own site)
    • 14 April 2021

    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

    • Upheld
    • Internet (social networking)
    • 07 April 2021

    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

    • Upheld in part
    • Newspaper, Internet (website content)
    • 07 April 2021

    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

    • Upheld
    • Internet (social networking)
    • 07 April 2021

    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

    • Upheld
    • Internet (social networking)
    • 07 April 2021

    Two Facebook ads for a formula milk manufacturer were banned for marketing infant formula, which is prohibited under the CAP Code.

  • Prettylittlething.com Ltd

    • Upheld
    • Internet (social networking)
    • 07 April 2021

    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

    • Upheld
    • Internet (social networking), Internet (website content)
    • 07 April 2021

    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

    • Upheld
    • Internet (social networking), Internet (website content)
    • 07 April 2021

    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

    • Upheld
    • Internet (video)
    • 07 April 2021

    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.

  • Campylite Investments Ltd

    • Upheld
    • Internet (website content), Internet (video)
    • 31 March 2021

    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

    • Upheld
    • Social media (influencer or affiliate ad)
    • 31 March 2021

    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

    • Upheld
    • Social media (influencer or affiliate ad)
    • 31 March 2021

    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

    • Upheld
    • Internet (display)
    • 31 March 2021

    A paid-for website ad promoting an equity release company was banned for misleadingly implying their service was associated with Martin Lewis.

  • Bamby H2O

    • Upheld
    • Social media (paid ad)
    • 24 March 2021

    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.

  • Team HARD Racing Ltd

    • Upheld
    • Social media (paid ad), Website (paid ad)
    • 17 March 2021

    A paid-for Instagram post and a website post promoting a competition to win a car breached the CAP Code as it was administered unfairly.

  • Watches of Switzerland Company Ltd t/a Goldsmiths

    • Upheld
    • Website (own site)
    • 17 March 2021

    A website post by a jewellery retailer was banned for making misleading savings claims about a pair of earrings.