-
Vodafone Ltd
Six ads for Vodafone were misleading by making an implied comparative claim without objectively comparing one or more specific verifiable features.
-
Howserv Ltd t/a Staysure Travel
A TV ad for a travel insurance company misleadingly claimed that there was no age limit to their service.
-
Vir Health Ltd t/a Numan
A TV ad for a weight-loss programme implied that a medicine could help users resist food temptation in a way that was inconsistent with what the medicine was approved to do and how it worked.
-
Select Specs Ltd
A TV and YouTube ad for a glasses retailer made misleading and unverifiable price comparisons with competitor products. The ads also made misleading pricing claims, including by failing to make minimum order requirements and non-optional delivery charges sufficiently clear.
-
On The Beach Ltd
A TV ad and two website pages for On the Beach misleadingly implied that all consumers with eligible bookings would receive free airport lounge access.
-
Assured Food Standards t/a Red Tractor
A TV ad for Assured Food Standard’s Red Tractor Scheme failed to make clear exactly which standards it was referring to, or the degree to which those standards were being met when using the claim “farmed with care” in conjunction with “all our standards are met.”
-
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.
-
Trainline.com Ltd
A Video on Demand ad and a radio ad for Trainline made misleading and unsubstantiated claims that they offered the cheapest ticket prices.
-
Colgate-Palmolive (UK) Ltd
A TV ad for Sanex shower gel was likely to cause serious offence by featuring a racial stereotype.
-
Actegy Ltd
A TV ad for ‘Revitive Circulation Booster’, a Neuromuscular electrical stimulation device, claiming it could reduce swelling did not make clear this was only in relation to healthy people and was a temporary result. It also made misleading claims the device could improve walking distance and duration for th...
-
Monzo Bank Ltd
A TV ad for Monzo and ITV Sport was obviously recognisable as an ad.
-
Kenvue UK Ltd t/a Listerine
A TV ad misleadingly exaggerated the performance of a product.
-
Mondelez UK Ltd t/a Cadbury
A radio ad made nutrition and comparative nutrition claims that didn’t meet the conditions of use for those claims.
-
LC International Ltd t/a Ladbrokes
A TV and Video on Demand ad featured content that was reflective of youth culture and was likely to be of strong appeal to under-18s.
-
Mars Wrigley Confectionery UK Ltd
A TV and Video on Demand ad condoned unsafe driving.
-
Neilson Financial Services Ltd t/a British Seniors
A TV ad didn't show an infant in an unsafe sleep position.
-
UAB Convenity t/a Huusk
A TV ad for Huusk Knives was irresponsibly scheduled.
-
Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals t/a RSPCA
A YouTube video, TV ad and poster didn't misleadingly represent the welfare standards afforded to animals farmed under the RSPCA Assured scheme.
-
Vodafone Ltd
Claims on Vodafone’s website which contained references to reliability and coverage failed to objectively compare one or more material, relevant, verifiable and representative features.
-
Shell UK Ltd
A TV ad didn’t give a misleading impression of Shell’s environmental impact.
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 (31)