Rulings (277)
  • ATR Brands Ltd t/a Antler

    • Upheld
    • 02 September 2026

    Two emails and a website page for a luggage retailer misleadingly implied a promotion included all products they sold, by stating a promotion related to “everything” or applied “sitewide” when this was not the case. 

  • Frasers Group Trading Ltd t/a Sports Direct

    • Upheld
    • Website (own site)
    • 02 September 2026

    A product page on the Sports Direct website made misleading claims about reference price and associated savings.

  • Glow Up LLC t/a Maxxing

    • Upheld
    • Social media (paid ad)
    • 02 September 2026

    Two paid-for Meta ads for an AI powered app to maximise physical attractiveness misleadingly exaggerated the effectiveness of the product, were irresponsible and included gender stereotypes that were likely to cause harm. 

  • Kind Patches Ltd

    • Upheld
    • Social media (paid ad)
    • 02 September 2026

    A paid-for Instagram ad for a supplement company, misleadingly implied their products had health benefits without supporting evidence and irresponsibly trivialised and condoned an act of anti-social behaviour. 

  • PLK Chicken UK Ltd t/a Popeyes

    • Not upheld
    • Social media (paid ad)
    • 02 September 2026

    An Instagram ad by @onlyscrans and a paid-for Instagram ad for Popeyes didn’t break the rules by featuring an identifiable less healthy food product.  

  • SheMed Ltd

    • Upheld
    • Social media (paid ad)
    • 02 September 2026

    A paid-for Reddit ad for a female-focused medical weight-loss service promoted weight-loss prescription-only medicines to the public, against the law and our rules, was likely to exploit consumers’ insecurities relating to body image and weight and was irresponsible.

  • The Monty Bojangles Co Ltd t/a 1st Floor Legion House

    • Not upheld
    • Social media (paid ad)
    • 02 September 2026

    A paid-for Instagram ad for Monty Bojangles didn’t break the less healthy food rules because it was a small and medium-sized enterprise and was therefore exempt.   

  • BioIdentical Hormone Therapy Ltd t/a BioID Health

    • Upheld
    • Social media (paid ad)
    • 26 August 2026

    Two paid-for Facebook ads for a hormone health consultant made misleading claims that they could provide more effective tests and services for low testosterone than GPs and were irresponsible by implying that GPs were insufficiently thorough.

  • Hotpoint UK Appliances Ltd

    • Upheld
    • Website (own site)
    • 26 August 2026

    A website for Hotpoint made misleading comparative claims.

  • Nutri-Paw Ltd t/a Healthy Dog

    • Upheld
    • Social media (paid ad)
    • 26 August 2026

    A paid-for Facebook ad for a dog dental care product misleadingly and irresponsibly implied that dogs undergoing veterinary treatment had a high chance of dying, made medicinal claims for an unauthorised product, and made misleading efficacy claims.

  • Vir Health Ltd t/a Numan

    • Upheld
    • Social media (paid ad)
    • 26 August 2026

    Two paid-for Facebook ads for a digital healthcare company made misleading claims about the occurrence of low testosterone in the male population.

  • Fenix Biomed BV

    • Upheld
    • Website (own site)
    • 19 August 2026

    A website for a human tissue donation service misleadingly implied they were based in the UK.

  • Ferrero UK Ltd t/a Thorntons

    • Not upheld
    • Social media (paid ad)
    • 19 August 2026

    A paid-for Instagram ad for Thorntons didn’t break the rules by featuring an identifiable less healthy food product.

  • Dribble Media Ltd t/a Midnite

    • Upheld
    • Television, VOD, Radio
    • 12 August 2026

    Two TV ads, Two Video on Demand ads and a radio ad for Midnite, a betting app, portrayed gambling behaviour that could lead to financial, social or emotional harm and also suggested that gambling was an escape from personal problems.

  • EverAI Ltd t/a AI Realities

    • Upheld
    • Social media (paid ad)
    • 12 August 2026

    A paid-for Facebook ad for an AI companion app was socially irresponsible and likely to cause serious and widespread offence by including a harmful gender stereotype which objectified women.

  • Gary Baron

    • Upheld
    • Website (own site)
    • 12 August 2026

    A webpage for Gary Baron Counselling claimed that he was a member of the British Association for Counselling and Psychotherapy (BACP) when this wasn’t the case.

  • Nectar Sleep Ltd

    • Upheld
    • Website (own site)
    • 12 August 2026

    The homepage for the Nectar Sleep website made misleading saving claims and didn’t make the basis of their savings claims clear. They also made comparisons against other brands’ prices without ensuring the claims were based on the actual price of the product.

  • YO! Sushi UK Ltd t/a YO!

    • Upheld
    • Social media (paid ad)
    • 12 August 2026

    A paid-for Instagram post for YO! Sushi broke the rules by featuring an identifiable specific less healthy food product.

  • Costcutter Supermarkets Group Ltd t/a Costcutter and Mondelez Europe Services GmbH – UK branch t/a Cadbury (Mondelez)

    • Upheld in part
    • Social media (paid ad), Website (own site)
    • 05 August 2026

    A webpage for Costcutter and Cadburys broke the rules by featuring an identifiable less healthy food product. Another ad was investigated but it didn’t break our rules.

  • Innate-Essence Ltd t/a the Turmeric Co.

    • Upheld
    • Website (own site)
    • 05 August 2026

    A website for a turmeric shot company made claims that a food could prevent, treat or cure human disease.