-
Cap Group Inc Ltd
A website for a whisky cask and gold coin investment company made misleading claims about investment returns. As well as misleadingly presenting an incorrect Trustpilot score. The ad also failed to make clear that cask whiskey investments were unregulated and that examples of past performance weren’t necessarily ...
-
Domino's Pizza UK & Ireland Ltd t/a Domino's
Two paid-for social media ads for Domino’s pizza didn’t break the rules by featuring an identifiable less healthy product.
-
Grain Connect Ltd
An email from a broadband company made misleading price rise claims about an identifiable competitor.
-
Kentucky Fried Chicken (Great Britain) Ltd t/a KFC
A TV ad, Video on Demand and three paid-for social media ads for KFC didn’t break the rules by featuring an identifiable less healthy product.
-
Mars Wrigley Confectionery UK Ltd t/a Mars
A paid-for Instagram ad for M&M’s broke the rules by featuring an identifiable less healthy food product through the inclusion of a character that depicted a specific less healthy food product.
-
Papa John's (GB) Ltd t/a Papa Johns
A paid for Facebook ad for Papa John’s didn’t break the rules by featuring an identifiable less healthy product.
-
S&E1 Ltd t/a Morley's Woking
A paid-for Instagram ad for Morley’s broke the rules by featuring an identifiable less healthy food product.
-
Stove Industry Alliance Ltd t/a Stove Industry Association (SIA)
[Republished ruling] A website for the Stove Industry Association made unsubstantiated claims that modern stoves emitted significantly lower emissions than open fireplaces or older stoves, and that they were a low-emission way to heat a home. It also failed to make the basis of comparative environmental claims clear.
-
Uber Eats UK Ltd t/a Uber Eats
A Video on Demand pause ad for Uber Eats didn’t break the rules by featuring an identifiable less healthy product.
-
Cablelinker Electronics Ltd t/a Aquoxis
A YouTube pre-roll ad and two online display ads for a pressure washer misleadingly exaggerated the functionality of the product.
-
Paramount Pictures UK
A pre-roll YouTube ad wasn’t likely to cause serious or widespread offence.
-
Singapore New Reading Technology Pte Ltd t/a GoodNovel
An in-game ad for an online reading platform was socially irresponsible, condoned violence, included harmful gender stereotypes and was likely to cause harm or serious and widespread offence.
-
Videoslots Ltd t/a Mr Vegas
A paid-for Facebook ad for a gambling company featured imagery that was likely to be of strong appeal to under-18s.
-
YN Netcom Ltd t/a BeeHome
A paid-for Facebook ad for a cordless pressure washer misleadingly exaggerated the functionality of the product and claimed they had a high rating based on customer reviews when this was not the case.
-
Adidas UK Ltd t/a adidas
A paid-for Google ad for adidas made misleading environmental claims.
-
Argos Limited t/a Argos
A page in the Argos 2025 Christmas gift guide featuring the video game Call of Duty: Black Ops 7 failed to make clear that the game contained loot boxes. Another ad was investigated but it didn’t break the rules.
-
Calvin Klein Europe BV t/a Calvin Klein
A paid-for Google ad for Calvin Klein made misleading environmental claims.
-
Express Healthcare Ltd t/a pharmacyonline.co.uk
A paid-for Meta ad and website for an online pharmacy promoted prescription-only medicines to the public, against the law and our rules.
-
Motorpoint Ltd
A paid-for Instagram ad for a used car retailer made misleading savings claims.
-
Patisserie Valerie Production Ltd t/a Patisserie Valerie
Three paid-for Google search ads for Patisserie Valerie didn’t break the less healthy food rules as they were a small or medium sized enterprise and therefore were exempt from the restrictions.
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 (294)