-
WashWater UK Ltd
A brochure for a water conditioning and purifying system manufacturer misleadingly implied their water treatment systems could target and remove existing limescale, reduce hot water bills and help improve certain skin conditions.
-
On The Beach Ltd
An email for On The Beach made misleading price comparison claims and failed to make clear if people needed to act quickly to benefit from an advertised lower price. The ad also failed to make the basis of comparisons clear and didn’t provide prominent information to allow people to verify comparisons.
-
OTTY Sleep Ltd
A website page for a mattress company made misleading savings claims.
-
DSV Communications Ltd t/a The One Broadband
A direct mailing misleadingly suggested that people at a specific address had been identified as having poor broadband connectivity and speeds. Another issue about a circular was informally resolved after the advertiser amended their ad.
-
Storage Giant Ltd
Two web pages and an email for a self-storage company made best price guaranteed claims without evidence to support them. They also failed to make sure that quoted prices reflected the total cost people would pay and didn’t make clear when prices were promotional or subject to significant...
-
Butlins Skyline Ltd t/a Butlins
An email promotion for Butlins wasn’t administered fairly because the closing date of the promotion was changed
-
Banquist Ltd t/a Winedrops
Two emails and a paid-for Instagram ad for an online wine retailer made misleading and unsubstantiated claims about the origin of their wine. They also failed to make clear the basis of the price comparisons and the significant conditions of the promotion.
-
Stove Industry Alliance Ltd t/a Stove Industry Association
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.
-
Procter & Gamble UK t/a Ariel
A TV ad for Ariel laundry pods made an unsubstantiated claim that their product was as effective at cleaning clothes as other products, or when used in combination with laundry additives, and made unverifiable comparisons with identifiable competitors.
-
Hammonds Furniture Ltd t/a Hammonds
A banner ad and a page on the Hammonds Furniture website, misleadingly implied that discount offers were time limited and also made unsubstantiated and unverifiable comparative claims with identifiable competitors.
-
Alibaba.com Singapore E-commerce Private Ltd t/a AliExpress
An email and paid-for Google search ad for AliExpress made misleading price statements.
-
Ambassador Cruise Holidays Ltd
An email advertising offers on cruises made misleading savings claims.
-
uSwitch Ltd
A marketing email did not mislead consumers about an exclusive offer to switch gas suppliers.
-
Marks and Spencer plc
A page within the Marks and Spencer app was socially irresponsible by portraying a model as unhealthily thin. A website, email and second app page were also investigated but did not break the rules.
-
Good Guru Ltd t/a Protein World
An email made claims that a food could treat anorexia.
-
CLF Distribution Ltd
An email misleadingly claimed that products only contained “naturally sweet ingredients”.
-
AirDoctor LLC t/a AmazingAir
A post on the health.detective Garstang Health Food Store’s TikTok account wasn't obviously identifiable as an ad and made medical claims for an unlicensed product.
-
UAB Convenity t/a Huusk
A TV ad for Huusk Knives was irresponsibly scheduled.
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 (18)