-
Adidas UK Ltd t/a adidas
A paid-for Google ad for adidas made misleading environmental claims.
-
Calvin Klein Europe BV t/a Calvin Klein
A paid-for Google ad for Calvin Klein made misleading environmental claims.
-
Express Healthcare Ltd t/a pharmacyonline.co.uk
A paid-for Meta ad and website for an online pharmacy promoted prescription-only medicines to the public, against the law and our rules.
-
Motorpoint Ltd
A paid-for Instagram ad for a used car retailer made misleading savings claims.
-
Patisserie Valerie Production Ltd t/a Patisserie Valerie
Three paid-for Google search ads for Patisserie Valerie didn’t break the less healthy food rules as they were a small or medium sized enterprise and therefore were exempt from the restrictions.
-
Revolut Ltd
A webpage on Revolut’s website wasn’t misleading.
-
The Clean Supps LLC t/a Inno Supps
Four paid-for Meta ads promoting supplements made claims that a food supplement could prevent, treat or cure human diseases or conditions, made unauthorised health claims and made claims that referred to a rate or amount of weight loss for food supplements. The ad also used ...
-
Uniqlo (UK) Ltd t/a UNIQLO
A paid- for Google ad for UNIQLO made misleading environmental claims.
-
Wrappiness UK
A paid-for Facebook ad for an online décor and gift retailer was likely to cause serious and widespread offence including by using explicit language and sexual references.
-
HealthTracker Apps t/a Blood Pressure Monitor App
Two paid-for in-app ads for a health app made medical claims for a product that wasn’t registered as a medical device and misleadingly implied that their app could monitor blood pressure and heart rate.
-
Hume Health LLC t/a HumeHealth
Three paid-for YouTube ads and a paid-for Facebook ad for Hume Health made medical claims for products that weren’t registered as medical devices, discouraged essential treatment for conditions for which medical supervision should be sought and exaggerated the capabilities of their products.
-
MN2S Management Ltd t/a MN2S
A website for a talent agency misleadingly stated that Seph Lawless was represented by the agency and was available to be booked through them.
-
Novabeyond Ltd t/a Blood Pressure-Monitor Tracker App
An in-app ad and a paid-for Google ad for a health app made medical claims for a product that wasn’t registered as a medical device and made misleading claims that their product could monitor blood pressure.
-
Optimize Business Ltd t/a SoulTalk
A paid-for TikTok ad for an AI-friends chat app was socially irresponsible and caused serious and widespread offence, including by objectifying and sexualising women and featuring a harmful gender stereotype.
-
P&L Studio t/a Blood Pressure
A paid-for in-app ad for a health app misleadingly implied that it could monitor blood pressure and heart rate.
-
Pure Cremation Funeral Planning Ltd t/a Pure Cremation
A TV ad for Pure Cremation misleadingly implied that their standard funeral plan included an attended funeral service and failed to make clear where a plan was limited to a non-attended cremation.
-
StudySmarter GmbH
Three job listings on a student resource website misleadingly implied they were genuine job vacancies and falsely implied that the advertiser was acting for purposes outside its business.
-
This is Enough Ltd
[Republished ruling] A website, LinkedIn post and GoFundMe page promoting DNA testing kits for victims of sexual assault made misleading claims about the incidence of rapes and the potential for evidence gathered using their self-testing kit to be admissible in court.
-
Amazon Europe Core Sarl t/a Amazon.co.uk
A paid-for Instagram ad for Amazon Fresh UK broke the rules by featuring an identifiable less healthy food product.
-
Dribble Media Ltd t/a Midnite
A TikTok post on Mia Mon’s account promoting an online betting platform didn’t feature someone who was likely to be of strong appeal to under-18s.
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 (300)