-
INSTITUTO NATURVITA S.L. t/a Natur Vital
A webpage misleadingly and irresponsibly implied that hair colourants were safe for people with an allergy to PPD.
-
Visual Stress Consultancy Ltd
A website made unsubstantiated claims that tinted glasses could be used for driving at night and condoned unsafe driving.
-
Health Line
Two paid-for Facebook ads misleadingly exaggerated the capabilities of laser eye treatment, falsely implied that they directly provided laser eye treatment themselves and didn't make clear that they received a commission for their service.
-
Marren Healthcare Ltd
A website for a rehab clinic referral company falsely implied that they were acting for purposes outside their business, that they owned clinics and that local rehab centres could be accessed using their website. They also didn't make clear that they received a commission for their services.
-
Sparring Partners Ltd t/a Gymbox
An Instagram ad was socially irresponsible and caused undue distress.
-
Go Night Night (unconfirmed)
A website for a sleep consultancy company misleadingly featured the logo of a professional standards body that it wasn't registered with.
-
The Boots Company plc
A TV and Video on Demand (VOD) ad condoned not using sunscreen.
-
Fanfinders Ltd
A paid-for Facebook ad promoting a free baby box featured an image which didn’t accurately represent what customers received.
-
247 Home Furnishings Ltd t/a 247Blinds
A website ad which made references to blindness were likely to cause serious or widespread offence on the grounds of disability.
-
Hike Future Ltd t/a Hike Footwear
Three paid-for Facebook ads made misleading claims about a money back guarantee, made medical claims for unlicensed products and featured testimonials that weren’t genuine.
-
Flow Neuroscience AB t/a Flow
An ad on Gemma Collins' Instagram account discouraged treatment for depression, a condition for which medical supervision should be sought.
-
MedTech Global LLP t/a Orthoback
A website and Facebook ad made unsubstantiated savings claims, made misleading claims about the advertiser's money-back guarantee and returns policy, and made medical claims for an unlicenced product which did not have the relevant compliance labels.
-
Person(s) unknown t/a Nultqh GB
A paid-for Meta ad for a prostate patch made medicinal claims for an unlicensed product.
-
Person(s) unknown t/a Cishx GB
A paid-for Meta ad which claimed that underwear could treat prostate issues made medical claims for a device that didn’t hold the applicable conformity marking and was not registered with the MHRA.
-
Innocent Health Ltd t/a Novomins Nutrition
A paid-for Facebook ad made claims that a supplement could treat anxiety and also made unauthorised specific health claims and general health claims.
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 (15)