-
Procter & Gamble UK t/a Always
A TV ad for Always Discreet incontinence pads did not compare the product to the most appropriate version from the leading brand, and contained on-screen text whose placement misleading implied that 95% of women surveyed preferred the Always Discreet pad to the maxi pad from the leading brand.
-
HMK V AG t/a Windsor Mint
A TV ad for Windsor Mint misleadingly implied that a commemorative coin took the form a normal 40mm coin, when this was not the case.
-
Nissan Motor (GB) Ltd t/a Nissan Motor (GB) Ltd
Two TV ads for a hybrid car didn’t not make sufficiently clear the extent to which it required petrol as a power source.
-
Shop TJC Ltd t/a TJC, The Jewellery Channel Ltd
A teleshopping presentation for a light machine made medical claims for a device that had not been registered for those claims.
-
Jaguar Land Rover Ltd
A TV ad for Defenders cars did not misleadingly suggest parking sensors to alert drivers of a cliff edge, or condone dangerous and irresponsible driving.
-
Key Retirement Solutions Ltd t/a Key Equity Release
A TV ad for an equity release mortgage product exploited the financial fears of the audience and did not make the risks and suitability of the product sufficiently clear.
-
The Feel Good Group Ltd t/a The Tanning Shop
A TV ad for The Tanning Shop did not encourage the irresponsible use of UV tanning equipment.
-
EE Ltd t/a EE
Ads for EE did not provide sufficient information for consumers to verify comparisons with identifiable competitors and inadequately signposted consumers to such information.
-
Diageo Great Britain Ltd t/a Diageo
A TV ad for a gin company did not imply the success of a social occasion depended on the presence or consumption of alcohol or portray alcohol as capable of changing moods.
-
Whyte and Mackay Ltd t/a Whyte and Mackay
A TV ad and Video on Demand (VOD) ad for a whisky company was unlikely to appeal strongly to people aged under 18.
-
Age Partnership Ltd
A TV ad for an equity release advisor and retirement income service provider misleadingly offered financial advice which they were unauthorised to provide.
-
Wuka Ltd t/a WUKA
A TV ad and Video on Demand (VOD) ad for a period underwear company was not offensive and was unlikely to cause distress.
-
BMW (UK) Ltd t/a Mini
A TV ad for the Mini Electric did not condone or encourage dangerous or irresponsible driving.
-
Gorilla Glue Europe Ltd
A TV ad for Gorilla Glue did not perpetuate harmful gender stereotypes.
-
Gemporia Ltd
Two teleshopping presentations for a jewellery retailer made misleading saving claims and price statements.
-
Vodafone Ltd t/a Vodafone
Pages on Vodafone’s website, two national press ads, a promoted Tweet, a TV ad and a radio ad misleadingly claimed to offer “The UK’s only Phone Buy-Back Guarantee.”
-
John Mills Ltd t/a JML Direct
A TV ad for a draught seal misleadingly exaggerated the efficacy of the product.
-
Shop TJC Ltd t/a The Jewellery Channel
A teleshopping presentation for a body contouring slimming device exaggerated the capabilities and performance of the device and made unsubstantiated claims.
-
Anglian Water Services Ltd t/a Anglian Water
A TV ad and video on demand (VOD) ad for a water company misleadingly omitted material information about its history of releasing sewage into the environment.
-
Severn Trent Water Ltd
A TV ad for a water company did not mislead or omit significant information.
Rulings
Our rulings are published every Wednesday and set out on the public record how, following 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, following receipt of a complaint, agreed to amend or withdraw their ad without the need for a formal investigation.
Rulings (34)