Rulings (41)
  • Not Guilty Food Co Ltd t/a The Skinny Food Co

    • Upheld
    • Social media (own site)
    • 14 April 2021

    A Facebook post promoting spice mixes was banned as the product’s name implied that it could help consumers lose weight.

  • Jetsun Sunbeds

    • Upheld
    • Internet (social networking)
    • 07 April 2021

    A Facebook post promoting sunbeds misleadingly and irresponsibly claimed that health benefits were obtained from the use of sunbeds.

  • DNAfit Life Sciences Ltd t/a DNAfit

    • Upheld
    • Social media (influencer or affiliate ad)
    • 31 March 2021

    A paid-for Instagram ad for a health and wellbeing company was banned for misleadingly implying they could provide consumers with effective personalised exercise and nutrition advice based on sequencing of their DNA that would result in improved health and fitness outcomes.

  • Bio-Medical Research Ltd t/a Slendertone

    • Upheld
    • 10 March 2021

    A TV ad for a toning belt was banned for misleadingly implying that the product was able to affect the size of the waist by visibly firming and toning the abdominal muscles.

  • HiSmile Pty Ltd

    • Upheld
    • Internet (social networking)
    • 17 February 2021

    A Snapchat story and a Facebook post promoting a teeth whitening company’s product were banned for misleadingly claiming their product had been clinically proven and for exaggerating its potential effects.

  • The Detox Clinic Ltd

    • Upheld
    • Internet (on own site)
    • 10 February 2021

    A website ad for a health clinic was banned for misleadingly stating that ozone therapy could successfully treat Covid-19 and for stating that colon hydrotherapy could treat IBS without holding sufficient evidence to support the claim.

  • GHN Merchant Services Ltd t/a Good Health Naturally

    • Upheld
    • Internet (website content)
    • 03 February 2021

    Three website posts promoting products which claimed to provide protection from electromagnet radiation were banned for not holding substantial evidence to support the claims.

  • Ryanair DAC

    • Upheld in part
    • Television
    • 03 February 2021

    Two TV ads for Ryanair were banned for misleading viewers about the impact vaccines would have on their ability to travel abroad during Easter and summer. We also upheld complaints on the grounds of social responsibility.

  • Skinny Tan Ltd in association with Elly Norris

    • Upheld
    • Social media (influencer or affiliate ad)
    • 03 February 2021

    Two Instagram stories by an influencer promoting a beauty product were banned for applying a filter which misleadingly exaggerated the effect the product was capable of achieving.

  • We Are Luxe Ltd t/a TANOLOGIST TAN, in association with Cinzia Baylis-Zullo

    • Upheld
    • Social media (influencer or affiliate ad)
    • 03 February 2021

    An Instagram story by an influencer promoting a beauty product was banned for applying a filter which misleadingly exaggerated the effect the product was capable of achieving.

  • LARQ

    • Upheld
    • Social media (own site)
    • 27 January 2021

    A paid-for Facebook post by a water bottle retailer was banned for implying that a bottle could kill all bacteria and viruses without holding substantial evidence to support the claim.

  • Microlyscs LLC t/a The Crazy Cap

    • Upheld
    • Social media (own site)
    • 20 January 2021

    A Facebook post promoting a bottle cap was banned for implying that it could kill all bacteria, viruses and pathogens without holding evidence to substantiate the claim.

  • Unilever UK Ltd

    • Upheld
    • Social media (paid ad)
    • 13 January 2021

    A paid-for Facebook post by Boots was banned for implying that a lotion product could protect babies’ skin microbiome without holding sufficient evidence to demonstrate that this was the case.

  • 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.

  • L(A)B Life and Beauty

    • Upheld
    • Internet (on own site)
    • 16 December 2020

    A website post and three Facebook posts by a skin and healthcare company were banned for claiming its belt product could help consumers lose weight without substantial evidence to support the claim.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • Jemella Ltd t/a GHD

    • Upheld
    • Internet (social networking)
    • 04 November 2020

    A TikTok post by Emily Canham about a GHD branded hairdryer was banned for not being obviously identifiable as an ad.

  • 360 Health Ltd t/a London Vaccination Centre

    • Upheld
    • Email
    • 14 October 2020

    A direct email from a vaccination clinic was banned for implying that a positive COVID-19 antibody test would show that people were immune to the disease.