-
Activision Blizzard UK Ltd t/a Call of Duty
A Video on Demand and YouTube ad for Call of Duty: Black Ops 7 was socially irresponsible and likely to cause serious offence by trivialising sexual violence. Another issue was investigated but it didn’t break the rules.
-
FlyDogGame t/a Love and Peace
A paid-for ad for a mobile game app was socially irresponsible and likely to cause serious or widespread offence, including by trivialising and condoning violence, including domestic violence.
-
Health Bridge Ltd t/a Zava
An advertorial promoting medicated weight-loss seen on the Mumsnet website didn’t make it clear it was an ad, used healthcare professionals to endorse a medicine and promoted prescription-only medicines to the public, against the law and our rules.
-
Pocket FM Private Ltd
A paid-for in-app ad for an audiobook app was socially irresponsible and likely to cause serious or widespread offence, including by referencing sexual assault and sexual violence.
-
Skywork AI Pte t/a Dramawave
A video ad for a streaming platform was socially irresponsible and likely to cause serious or widespread offence, including by featuring content that was sexually explicit and suggested sexual violence.
-
Surge International Ltd
A listing seen on the job website Indeed.com made misleading claims about the starting salary of a role and failed to make clear that the role was self-employed.
-
Transport For London t/a TFL
A paid-for Facebook ad for Transport for London was socially irresponsible and likely to cause serious offence on the grounds of race by reinforcing a negative stereotype about black men.
-
Virgin Media Ltd
A TV ad for Virgin Media didn’t provide sufficient information to enable people to verify comparisons with identifiable competitors. Another issue was investigated but it didn’t break the rules.
-
Whaleco UK Ltd t/a Temu
Two paid-for Facebook ads for Temu were misleading by contradicting the terms and conditions that applied to an advertised promotion.
-
Golden Vape UK Ltd
Seven product listings on eBay promoted unlicenced nicotine containing e-cigarettes and their components in media where these products cannot be advertised.
-
Haikou Chengfa Technology Co Ltd t/a Aurai Ai
A paid-for YouTube ad for an AI role play app was socially irresponsible and likely to cause serious and widespread offence, including by featuring expletives and content that condoned sexually violent behaviour.
-
Health Bridge Ltd t/a Zava
An Instagram post, TikTok video and a Facebook post for weight-loss injections promoted prescription-only medicines to the public, against the law and our rules.
-
MedExpress Enterprises Ltd t/a MedExpress
Three Instagram posts and a TikTok video for weight-loss injections promoted prescription-only medicines to the public, against the law and our rules.
-
Menwell Ltd t/a Voy
Four Instagram ads for weight-loss injections promoted prescription-only medicines to the public, against the law and our rules.
-
UK Meds Direct Ltd
Two TikTok ads for weight-loss injections promoted prescription-only medicines to the public, against the law and our rules.
-
ZING Oral Care Ltd t/a ZING Toothpaste
Three paid-for Facebook ads for ZING Toothpaste misleadingly implied they had a five-star Trustpilot rating but didn't have the evidence to back this claim up.
-
Co-operative Group t/a Co-op
A website for Co-op advertising a price-match scheme was misleading by not comparing the most appropriate products. The ad also failed to make the basis of comparisons clear and didn’t provide prominent information to allow people to verify comparisons. Two other issues were investigated but did not break the rul...
-
Criterion Hospitality Limited t/a Zedwell Hotels
A paid-for Meta ad for Zedwell Hotels didn’t make misleading claims about the price of hotel rooms.
-
Kind Patches Ltd
Four paid-for Facebook ads for a supplement company misleadingly implied their products had health benefits without having suitable evidence to back these claims up.
-
The Cheeky Panda Ltd
A website for a baby product company failed to make the basis of environmental and comparative claims clear and didn’t have suitable evidence to support the claims made.
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 (280)