-
Banquist Ltd t/a Winedrops
Two emails and a paid-for Instagram ad for an online wine retailer made misleading and unsubstantiated claims about the origin of their wine. They also failed to make clear the basis of the price comparisons and the significant conditions of the promotion.
-
Beautaholics Ltd
A paid-for Meta ad and a website page for a hair and skincare retailer which featured an LED facemask made medicinal claims for a product that was not registered with the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) and didn't have the applicable conformity marking.
-
Cleriva t/a NovaFlow
Two paid-for Facebook ads for a sinus clearing device made medical claims for a product that did not have the applicable conformity marking and was not registered with the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA).
-
Invention Works BV t/a Silk’n
A paid-for Meta ad and website page for a hair and skincare tool retailer, which featured an LED facemask, made medicinal claims for a product that was not registered with the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) and did not have the applicable conformity marking.
-
Luyors Retail Inc
A paid-for Meta ad for a retailer of LED therapy tools, which featured an LED facemask, made medicinal claims for a product that was not registered with the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) and did not have the applicable conformity marking.
-
Project E Beauty LLC
A paid-for Meta ad and a website page for a hair and skincare retailer, which featured an LED facemask made medicinal claims for a product that was not registered with the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) and did not have the applicable conformity marking.
-
Betway Ltd
A pre-roll ad on YouTube for Betway featured the Chelsea FC logo in a manner which was likely to be of strong appeal to under-18s.
-
Bonne Terre Ltd t/a Sky Bet
[Republished ruling] A promoted tweet for Sky Bet featured Gary Neville, a person who was likely to be of strong appeal to under-18s.
-
Charlie Johnson
Two paid-for social media ads by Charlie Johnson, a business coach in the fitness industry, misleadingly implied that claimed lifestyle and earning results were typical and that a promotion was time limited when this wasn’t the case.
-
Grant Cardone Training Technologies Inc t/a Grant Cardone
A paid-for Facebook ad for an online business event by businessman Grant Cardone misleadingly implied that claimed earnings results were typical.
-
Jessica Crane Ltd
A paid-for Facebook and Instagram ad for a wealth and business coach company, run by Jessica Crane, misleadingly implied that lifestyle and earnings results were typical, misled in relation to the content of training material available for free and made unsubstantiated claims about the number of top salon owners using ...
-
Robbins Research International Inc t/a Tony Robbins
A paid-for Facebook post by Tony Robbins advertising a business coaching course misleadingly implied that claimed earnings results were typical.
-
Self Made Girl Boss Ltd
A paid-for Instagram post for a business coaching company, misleadingly implied that stated lifestyle and earning results were typical, included qualifications that contradicted the claims that they qualified, and failed to make the distinction between free and priced items clear.
-
Shell Energy UK
A paid-for LinkedIn ad for Shell Energy didn't give a misleading impression of the overall environmental impact of Shell’s business activities.
-
Au Vodka Ltd
A TikTok post by influencer Lucinda Strafford, a paid-for Facebook post featuring influencer Kai Cenat and another paid-for Facebook post advertising AU Vodka were inappropriately targeted, directed at under-18s and featured people who were, or appeared to be, under-25.
-
Currys Group Ltd t/a Currys
A paid-for Facebook ad for Currys was misleading and socially irresponsible by implying that e-scooters could be ridden on public roads.
-
JLG Legal Ltd t/a Johnson Law Group
A Google paid-for search ad, a paid-for Facebook ad and website for Johnson Law Group, relating to group action compensation claims by diesel vehicle owners and lessees, failed to make clear that by providing their details and e-signing, people were signing a legally binding contract to join a group action claim, omitt...
-
Jones Whyte Law Ltd t/a Jones Whyte
A website and paid-for Facebook ad for James Whyte, relating to group action compensation claims for people who had been affected by a data breach, failed to present material information clearly and also omitted material information.
-
KP Law Ltd
A website and a paid-for Facebook ad for Join the Claim, relating to group action compensation claims by people who had been affected by a data breach, falsely implied that the advertiser was acting for purposes outside its business, didn’t make their commercial intent clear, didn’t present material informa...
-
Voodoo Doll Ltd t/a MOJO Manchester
A paid-for Meta ad for a bar, which referenced alcoholic drinks, was irresponsible by being likely to have particular appeal to under-18s and by encouraging excessive drinking.
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 (94)