-
Zzoomm plc
A circular letter for a broadband provider wasn’t obviously identifiable as marketing material and misled consumers by presenting it in a way that implied they were important notices on broadband disruption.
-
William Hill Organization Ltd t/a William Hill
A promotional voucher for William Hill encouraged irresponsible use.
-
SP Graham Retail Ltd
A voucher for Sean Graham bookmakers didn’t include all the significant conditions of the promotion and also failed to administer the promotion fairly.
-
Lloyds Bank plc t/a Lloyds Banking Group (LBG)
A national press ad for Lloyds Bank misleadingly implied that they had made donations to social housing projects and omitted significant information that put these claims into context.
-
Energystore Ltd
A local press ad for a loft and wall cavity insulation installation company was misleading because it omitted material information about the government funding available for installing insulation products.
-
Viridian International Ltd t/a Viridian
A website and magazine ad made unsubstantiated claims that a supplement didn't contain any ultra-processed ingredients and also discredited and denigrated other nutritional supplements.
-
Pressplay Ltd
A press ad for anti-glare driving glasses misleadingly implied they could prevent glare while driving and could make driving safer.
-
Barclays Bank plc
A magazine ad was unlikely to give a misleading impression of Barclay’s overall contribution to carbon dioxide and greenhouse gas emissions.
-
Hutchison 3G UK Ltd t/a Three Mobile
A national press ad, two paid-for Meta ads and a website for Three Mobile didn’t make misleading ‘best value’ claims.
-
High Seat Ltd t/a HSL
A website, two emails and a leaflet didn’t make the limitations for guaranteed Christmas delivery clear.
-
Luxury Lodge Estates Company Ltd t/a Luxury Lodges
A magazine ad didn’t make clear that the value of investments was variable, and that examples of past performance weren’t necessarily a guide to the future. It also failed to make the nature of a guarantee clear and didn’t include non-optional fees.
-
Churchill Retirement Living Ltd
A national newspaper ad failed to include the significant conditions of a promotion, including a closing date.
-
Gold Warehouse Ltd t/a Gold Bank
A press ad failed to make clear that gold investment was unregulated and that the value of investments was variable.
-
Harrington & Byrne Ltd
A press ad failed to make clear that gold investment was unregulated, that the value of investments was variable and that examples of past performance weren’t necessarily a guide to the future.
-
Stirling Health Ltd
A press ad made medicinal claims for an unauthorised product.
-
Pegasus Homes Ltd t/a Pegasus Homes
A national newspaper ad for a retirement property company failed to include the significant conditions of a promotion and misleadingly omitted information regarding the price of a service charge.
-
Pegasus Homes Ltd t/a Pegasus Homes
A national newspaper ad for a retirement property company failed to include the significant conditions of a promotion.
-
Prime Star Shop Ltd t/a Branshaws
A press ad made medical claims for an unlicenced product which didn’t hold the relevant compliance labels.
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 (18)