-
infirst Ltd t/a Flarin
A TV ad misleadingly implied that Flarin was better for treating joint pain than other ibuprofen products.
-
John Mills Ltd t/a JML Direct
A TV ad featured a testimonial which misleadingly implied a heated drying pod could prevent condensation form forming.
-
Mous Products Ltd
A TV ad made misleading claims about the efficacy of a range of phone cases.
-
Nationwide Building Society t/a Nationwide
TV, radio and press ads for Nationwide were misleading as consumers were likely to understand that the building society had made a long-term decision not to close their branches and that they had not recently closed any branches when this was not the case.
-
John Mills Ltd t/a JML Direct
A TV ad for a cleaning tool presented gender stereotypes in a way that was likely to cause harm.
-
DUSK (Retail) Ltd
A TV ad was not likely to cause serious or widespread offence over its portrayal of men.
-
LeoVegas Gaming plc t/a Bet MGM
A TV ad for Bet MGM featuring Chris Rock was not likely to be of strong appeal to under-18s.
-
Jumpman Gaming Ltd t/a Lights Camera Bingo
A TV ad for Lucky Cow Bingo did not feature content that was likely to be of strong appeal to under-18s.
-
LeoVegas Gaming plc t/a BetUK
A radio ad for BetUK featuring Adebayo Akinfenwa was likely to be of strong appeal to under-18s.
-
Vir Health Ltd t/a Numan
A TV ad for a hair loss treatment guaranteed the efficacy of the product, breaking the Code.
-
DUSK (Retail) Ltd
A TV ad did not irresponsibly imply that drinking alcohol had therapeutic qualities and could be used to cope with parenthood.
-
Greater London Authority
A radio ad about the ULEZ expansion misleadingly claimed that one of the most polluted places in London is inside people’s cars.
-
Transport For London t/a TFL
A TV ad, radio ads and a press ad for Transport for London’s Ultra Low Emission Zone (ULEZ) expansion contained some misleading claims about reductions in levels of nitrous oxide in central London.
-
Happytiger ApS
A TV ad for bingo featured someone who appeared to be under the age of 25.
-
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.
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 (41)