-
Golden Vape UK Ltd
Seven product listings on eBay promoted unlicenced nicotine containing e-cigarettes and their components in media where these products cannot be advertised.
-
Haikou Chengfa Technology Co Ltd t/a Aurai Ai
A paid-for YouTube ad for an AI role play app was socially irresponsible and likely to cause serious and widespread offence, including by featuring expletives and content that condoned sexually violent behaviour.
-
Health Bridge Ltd t/a Zava
An Instagram post, TikTok video and a Facebook post for weight-loss injections promoted prescription-only medicines to the public, against the law and our rules.
-
MedExpress Enterprises Ltd t/a MedExpress
Three Instagram posts and a TikTok video for weight-loss injections promoted prescription-only medicines to the public, against the law and our rules.
-
Menwell Ltd t/a Voy
Four Instagram ads for weight-loss injections promoted prescription-only medicines to the public, against the law and our rules.
-
UK Meds Direct Ltd
Two TikTok ads for weight-loss injections promoted prescription-only medicines to the public, against the law and our rules.
-
ZING Oral Care Ltd t/a ZING Toothpaste
Three paid-for Facebook ads for ZING Toothpaste misleadingly implied they had a five-star Trustpilot rating but didn't have the evidence to back this claim up.
-
Co-operative Group t/a Co-op
A website for Co-op advertising a price-match scheme was misleading by not comparing the most appropriate products. The ad also failed to make the basis of comparisons clear and didn’t provide prominent information to allow people to verify comparisons. Two other issues were investigated but did not break the rul...
-
Criterion Hospitality Limited t/a Zedwell Hotels
A paid-for Meta ad for Zedwell Hotels didn’t make misleading claims about the price of hotel rooms.
-
Kind Patches Ltd
Four paid-for Facebook ads for a supplement company misleadingly implied their products had health benefits without having suitable evidence to back these claims up.
-
The Cheeky Panda Ltd
A website for a baby product company failed to make the basis of environmental and comparative claims clear and didn’t have suitable evidence to support the claims made.
-
persons unknown t/a Animals Solitaire: Protect
An in-game ad for a mobile game app was socially irresponsible and likely to cause serious or widespread offence, including by objectifying and sexualising women and featuring a harmful gender stereotype.
-
CB Payments Ltd t/a Coinbase
A video on demand ad and three posters for Coinbase, a cryptocurrency trading platform, irresponsibly trivialised the risks of cryptocurrency investment and implied it was a solution to financial concerns associated with the cost of living.
-
Dreame International Hong Kong Ltd t/a Stary PTE Ltd
Two in-app ads for a romantic fiction app were socially irresponsible and likely to cause serious and widespread offence including by trivialising or condoning violence against women and girls and featuring sexually explicit content. The ads also were irresponsibly targeted.
-
GJF Baron Nobilis Services Co. Ltd t/a Noble Titles
A webpage for a title purchasing website misleadingly implied that the public could purchase a legal or officially recognised title through their service.
-
Mamedica Ltd
A website for a medical cannabis clinic made misleading price comparison claims, failed to make the basis of comparisons with competitors clear and didn’t ensure that people would be able to verify comparative claims.
-
Manchester Fertility Services Ltd t/a Egg Donors UK
Two paid-for Facebook ads for Egg Donors UK trivialised the decision to donate eggs by emphasising the financial compensation.
-
TUI UK Ltd
A holiday listing featured on the TUI website misleadingly advertised prices that weren’t available to the public.
-
Whitworths Ltd
An Instagram carousel post for WhitworthsUK misleadingly implied that a product counted toward the Government’s recommended “five a day” portions of fruit and vegetables and made unauthorised comparative nutrition claims.
-
easyJet Airline Co Ltd
A webpage for easyJet used “from” price claims which misleadingly implied that large cabin bags were available at the advertised price across a significant proportion of their flights.
Rulings
Our rulings are published every Wednesday and set out on the public record how, following a formal 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 agree to amend or withdraw their ad without being subject to a formal ruling.
Rulings (264)