Rulings (20)
  • Telefonica UK Ltd t/a O2

    • Upheld
    • Newspaper
    • 22 September 2021

    A newspaper ad for O2 was banned for making misleading comparative claims against their competitors.

  • Cheshire Health & Medical Professionals LLP

    • Upheld
    • Magazine
    • 15 September 2021

    We banned an ad for a medical device claiming over misleading efficacy claims around pain relief.

  • Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board t/a AHDB

    • Not upheld
    • Social media (paid ad), Television, VOD
    • 18 August 2021

    We did not uphold complaints regarding ads encouraging meat consumption.

  • Vodafone Ltd

    • Upheld
    • Newspaper, Internet (website content)
    • 28 July 2021

    A website and newspaper ad for Vodafone were banned for claiming to be the “UK’s best mobile data network” without having adequate proof to substantiate the claim.

  • Cignpost Diagnostics Ltd

    • Upheld
    • Newspaper
    • 21 July 2021

    A newspaper ad for a PCR testing programme was banned for promoting behaviour that contradicted government advice on social distancing.

  • Actegy Ltd

    • Upheld
    • Television
    • 14 July 2021

    A newspaper ad for an Aerosure device was banned for misleadingly stating that it was clinically proven to reduce coughing and a tight chest associated with a shortness of breath.

  • Person(s) unknown t/a KaiAviation

    • Upheld
    • Magazine (paid ad)
    • 23 June 2021

    A magazine ad for a clothing company was banned for being likely to cause serious or widespread offence by objectifying women.

  • Tesco Stores Ltd t/a Tesco

    • Not upheld
    • Newspaper
    • 09 June 2021

    A newspaper ad for Tesco did not make misleading price comparison claims and did not break the CAP Code.

  • Max Mara Fashion Group Srl

    • Upheld
    • Magazine (paid ad)
    • 05 May 2021

    A magazine ad for a clothing retailer was banned for including a model who appeared unhealthily thin.

  • Grey Technology Ltd t/a Gtech

    • Upheld in part
    • Newspaper, Internet (website content)
    • 07 April 2021

    Two newspaper ads and a website ad for a vacuum cleaner were banned for implying the product could completely eliminate dust clouds without holding adequate evidence to prove this.

  • Coinfloor Ltd

    • Upheld
    • Regional press
    • 17 March 2021

    A press ad for a Bitcoin and cryptocurrency exchange was banned for irresponsibly suggesting that purchasing Bitcoin was a good or secure way to invest one’s savings or pension and for failing to make clear the risks associated with Bitcoin investments.

  • Dalradian Gold Ltd

    • Upheld
    • 10 March 2021

    A newspaper ad for a gold mining construction project was banned for misleadingly implying that materials extracted from the proposed mine would be used in the renewable energy industry.

  • Telefonica UK Ltd t/a O2

    • Upheld
    • National newspaper (paid ad), Television
    • 24 February 2021

    A TV and newspaper ad for O2 which claimed it was the “UK’s No.1 Network” was found to be misleading because the comparisons it made with competitors were not clear.

  • Manuka Doctor (UK) Ltd

    • Upheld
    • National newspaper (ad feature)
    • 06 January 2021

    A newspaper ad for a brand of honey was banned for implying that it could be used as a treatment for coughs and for implying that its “anti-microbial” properties could treat diseases.

  • Lidl Great Britain Ltd

    • Upheld
    • Internet (on own site), National press, Leaflet
    • 16 December 2020

    Two leaflets, a website, and two newspaper ads for Lidl products were banned for quoting unsubstantiated RRP claims.

  • Easylife Group Ltd t/a Easylife Group, Positive Health

    • Upheld
    • 02 December 2020

    A brochure ad for a skin product was banned for implying that it was effective at removing the appearance of wrinkles and removing skin tags, without adequate evidence.

  • Geraint Christopher t/a Hemp in Avalon

    • Upheld
    • 02 December 2020

    A newspaper and Instagram post by a hemp shop were banned for inciting people to break the law by discouraging them from wearing face coverings in shops.

  • Health Solutions Ltd

    • Upheld
    • Leaflet
    • 25 November 2020

    A leaflet for a healthcare service was banned for implying that their food supplements could prevent, treat or cure human disease.

  • BrewDog plc

    • Upheld in part
    • National newspaper (paid ad)
    • 18 November 2020

    Poster and press ads for BrewDog beer broke the rules on offence by using a reference to an expletive in media targeted to a general audience. The same ad appearing in targeted magazines did not break the rules.

  • Easylife Group Ltd t/a Easylife Group, Positive Health

    • Upheld
    • Newspaper
    • 11 November 2020

    An ad in a national newspaper made misleading and unsubstantiated claims that a reusable face mask would protect the wearer from COVID-19 and that copper-infused fibres in the mask would kill particles of COVID-19.