-
Basetan
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
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
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
A leaflet for a water softener misleadingly claimed that the product produced glossier hair and softer skin.
-
The Regenerative Clinic Ltd
A newspaper ad for joint pain treatment was banned for implying that the treatment permanently relieved discomfort associated with arthritis.
-
HiSmile Pty Ltd
A Snapchat story ad for a teeth whitening product made misleading claims about its effectiveness.
-
Procter & Gamble (Health & Beauty Care) Ltd
A poster advertising nasal spray made misleading claims about its effectiveness against eliminating cold symptoms.
-
Revival Drinks Ltd t/a Revival Shots
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
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
A promotional email, by an aesthetic clinic, offering vitamin injections broke the rules by promoting prescription-only medicines to the general public.
-
STYLIDEAS Ltd
A tweet by Lord Alan Sugar and Stylsmile UK did not make clear it was an ad.
-
Procter & Gamble (Health & Beauty Care) Ltd
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
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
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
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
A website ad for nutrition capsules was banned for claiming they could prevent degenerative diseases.
-
Easylife Group Ltd t/a Easylife Group, Positive Health
A brochure ad was banned for making medicinal claims for unlicensed products.
-
Easy Shopping 4 Home Ltd
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
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
Two TV ads claiming shorts could strengthen women’s pelvic floor and treat incontinence were misleading.
Rulings
Our rulings are published every Wednesday and set out on the public record how, following 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, following receipt of a complaint, agreed to amend or withdraw their ad without the need for a formal investigation.
Rulings (39)