-
ESTHETURK Danismanlik A.S. t/a You Clinic
A paid-for Meta ad and a paid-for Google ad for a medical clinic made misleading claims that stem cell treatment could treat or alleviate the traits associated with autism or stop the progression of autism.
-
Harnbury Holdings Ltd t/a San Carlo
An Instagram post by Pamela Olender for the restaurant San Carlo Cicchetti wasn’t obviously identifiable as an ad and broke the rules by featuring an identifiable less healthy food product.
-
Here We Flo Ltd t/a Flo
Three Instagram posts for a period product company made misleading environmental claims, including by failing to make the basis of environmental claims clear.
-
International Medical Center LLC t/a Swiss Medica
A paid-for Meta ad for a medical clinic made misleading claims that stem cell treatment could treat or alleviate the traits associated with autism.
-
Jap Car South Ltd
A website for a car import company was likely to cause serious offence on the grounds of race.
-
Linden Clinics t/a Linden Stem Cell
A paid-for Facebook ad for a stem cell therapy clinic made misleading claims that stem cell therapy was effective in improving the traits associated with autism in children.
-
Morley's (Fast Foods) Ltd
An Instagram post by Ellie Scotney for Morley’s UK broke the rules by featuring an identifiable less healthy food product.
-
Reliable Medicare Ltd
Three product listings on the website of a medical aesthetics and skincare supplier made misleading savings claims.
-
Rumi Pulse t/a Rumi Pulse Medical Tourism Agency
A paid-for Meta ad for a medical clinic made misleading claims that stem cell treatment could treat or alleviate the traits associated with autism.
-
The Trade Desk, Inc
A promoted LinkedIn post from a media buying platform broke the rules by featuring an identifiable less healthy food.
-
Whitworths Ltd
An Instagram post on the WhitworthsUK page made unauthorised health claims and implied that a food could prevent or treat human disease.
-
Animcha Ltd t/a tyan.ai
A paid-for Meta ad for an AI companion generator app was socially irresponsible and caused serious or widespread offence, including by featuring a harmful gender stereotype that objectified and sexualised women. The ad also portrayed someone who was or appeared to be under 18 years of age in a sexual way.
-
Dribble Media Ltd t/a Midnite
A paid-for TikTok ad for Midnite featured someone who was or seemed to be under 25 gambling and playing a significant role in the ad.
-
Guangxi Baise Tianyi Agricultural Development Co Ltd t/a Nexaipic - AI Portrait Generation Tool
Two paid-for Meta ads for an AI portrait generation tool were socially irresponsible and caused serious or widespread offence, including by featuring a harmful gender stereotype that objectified and sexualised women.
-
McCain Foods (GB) Ltd t/a McCain Foodservice Solutions
A paid-for Facebook ad for McCain Foods and Five Akhi’s restaurants broke the rules by featuring an identifiable less healthy food product.
-
Persons unknown t/a KH31 DD22
A paid-for Meta ad for an AI image-to-video generator app was socially irresponsible and caused serious or widespread offence, including by featuring a harmful gender stereotype that objectified and sexualised women.
-
Pimlico Plumbers Ltd t/a Pimlico
A website for Pimlico Plumbers that made ‘24/7 service’ claims wasn’t misleading.
-
Rusto AI-AI Photo Toolbox t/a Rusto AI
A paid-for Meta ad for an AI image generator tool was socially irresponsible and caused serious or widespread offence, including by featuring a harmful gender stereotype that objectified and sexualised women.
-
Sinosea Technology PTE Ltd t/a PictoPop
A paid-for Meta ad for an AI image-to-video generation app was socially irresponsible and caused serious or widespread offence, including by featuring a harmful gender stereotype that objectified and sexualised women.
-
Tilray Brands UK Ltd t/a BrewDog
Two paid-for Facebook posts for BrewDog were socially irresponsible and encouraged the excessive consumption of alcohol. The ads also portrayed alcohol as capable of changing mood.
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 (283)