Rulings (39)
  • Basetan

    • Upheld
    • Internet (social networking)
    • 02 September 2020

    A Facebook post promoting a tanning salon misleadingly implied sunbeds were the most efficient way to increase vitamin D levels and discouraged essential treatment for medical conditions.

  • Easylife Group Ltd

    • Upheld
    • Newspaper
    • 12 August 2020

    A newspaper ad for a face mask was banned for implying it could protect wearers from COVID-19 without holding sufficient evidence to prove it met PPE standards.

  • Pheka Agency Co Ltd

    • Upheld
    • Social media (paid ad)
    • 12 August 2020

    A jewellery company’s Facebook ad was banned for stating a necklace could provide protection from electromagnetic radiation without holding adequate proof to back up the claim.

  • Harvey Water Softeners Ltd

    • Upheld
    • Leaflet
    • 05 August 2020

    A leaflet for a water softener misleadingly claimed that the product produced glossier hair and softer skin.

  • The Regenerative Clinic Ltd

    • Upheld
    • Newspaper
    • 05 August 2020

    A newspaper ad for joint pain treatment was banned for implying that the treatment permanently relieved discomfort associated with arthritis.

  • HiSmile Pty Ltd

    • Upheld
    • Social media (paid ad)
    • 22 July 2020

    A Snapchat story ad for a teeth whitening product made misleading claims about its effectiveness.

  • Procter & Gamble (Health & Beauty Care) Ltd

    • Upheld
    • Poster, Transport
    • 08 July 2020

    A poster advertising nasal spray made misleading claims about its effectiveness against eliminating cold symptoms.

  • Revival Drinks Ltd t/a Revival Shots

    • Upheld
    • Social media (own site)
    • 27 May 2020

    A Facebook ad and two Instagram ads for Revival Shots broke the ad rules by implying that their food product could prevent, treat or cure human disease and for making health claims that were not listed as authorised on the EU Register of nutrition and health claims.

  • Chuckling Goat Ltd

    • Upheld
    • Transport, Website (own site)
    • 13 May 2020

    A poster ad and website claims by a food provider broke the rules by implying its products prevented, treated or cured human disease.

  • PCK SKIN (Manchester) Ltd t/a SkinSpaceUK

    • Upheld
    • Email
    • 13 May 2020

    A promotional email, by an aesthetic clinic, offering vitamin injections broke the rules by promoting prescription-only medicines to the general public.

  • STYLIDEAS Ltd

    • Upheld
    • Internet (social networking)
    • 06 May 2020

    A tweet by Lord Alan Sugar and Stylsmile UK did not make clear it was an ad.

  • Procter & Gamble (Health & Beauty Care) Ltd

    • Not upheld
    • Internet (on own site), Website (own site), Television
    • 29 April 2020

    A TV ad and website claims for an anti-ageing moisturiser did not mislead about the level of sun protection the product provided

  • Cosmetic Medical Advice UK Ltd t/a Dr Rita Rakus Clinic

    • Upheld
    • Internet (social networking)
    • 22 April 2020

    Instagram posts that implied an IV drip treatment could help to prevent people from catching coronavirus/COVID-19 broke the advertising rules.

  • REVIV UK Ltd

    • Upheld
    • Internet (on own site)
    • 22 April 2020

    Claims on a website that an IV drip treatment could prevent or treat coronavirus/COVID-19 broke the advertising rules.

  • The Private Harley Street Clinic

    • Upheld
    • Internet (on own site)
    • 22 April 2020

    Claims on a website that an IV drip treatment could prevent or treat coronavirus/COVID-19 broke the advertising rules.

  • MW Nutrition Ltd t/a Motion Nutrition

    • Upheld
    • Internet (on own site)
    • 25 March 2020

    A website ad for nutrition capsules was banned for claiming they could prevent degenerative diseases.

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

    • Upheld
    • Insert
    • 18 March 2020

    A brochure ad was banned for making medicinal claims for unlicensed products.

  • Easy Shopping 4 Home Ltd

    • Upheld
    • Internet (OM 3rd party)
    • 04 March 2020

    A product listing on Amazon for face masks claiming to protect consumers from coronavirus was misleading and irresponsible and likely to cause fear without justifiable reason.

  • Novads OU

    • Upheld
    • Internet (on own site), Internet (display)
    • 04 March 2020

    Paid-for display ads and website claims for face masks claiming to protect consumers from coronavirus were misleading and irresponsible and likely to cause fear without justifiable reason.

  • Atlantic Therapeutics Group Ltd t/a innovo

    • Upheld
    • Television
    • 26 February 2020

    Two TV ads claiming shorts could strengthen women’s pelvic floor and treat incontinence were misleading.