-
BPerfect Ltd
A series of Instagram story posts on Charlotte Dawson’s account were banned for failing to disclose they were ads, as well as using filters to exaggerate a product’s efficacy
-
Cignpost Diagnostics Ltd
A newspaper ad for a PCR testing programme was banned for promoting behaviour that contradicted government advice on social distancing.
-
Actegy Ltd
A newspaper ad for an Aerosure device was banned for misleadingly stating that it was clinically proven to reduce coughing and a tight chest associated with a shortness of breath.
-
Pruvit Ventures Inc
A website post, five Instagram posts and an Instagram Highlights reel for a health company were banned for making unauthorised health claims and for implying that food supplements could treat diseases.
-
Evaq Ltd
A website ad for facemasks was banned for misleadingly stating that the masks could kill Covid-19.
-
Go-Vi Ltd
A website ad for an air and surface purifier was banned for stating it could destroy Covid-19 without holding sufficient evidence to substantiate the claim.
-
YORKTEST LABORATORIES LTD
A TV ad and a website post for a nutritional, dietary programme was banned for implying that the testing for the programme could help to alleviate symptoms of migraines or depression.
-
Anthony Grant t/a Resonator.uk
A website and Facebook ad for an electronic bio-resonance machine was banned for stating that it was an effective alternative to vaccination against COVID-19.
-
Boux Avenue Ltd
A paid-for Facebook ad featuring a woman wearing lingerie did not break the CAP Code as the model did not appear to be unhealthily thin.
-
Homeopathy UK
A website ad for a homeopathy company was banned for discouraging essential treatment for conditions for which medical supervision should be sought.
-
JST Nutrition Ltd
Seven posts on Jodie Marsh's Instagram account, promoting a food supplement retailer, were banned for making specific health claims which were not were authorised on the GB Register and for not ensuring that the posts were obviously identifiable as ads.
-
Red Light Therapy Ltd
A website post and a paid-for Google ad promoting red light therapy were banned for discouraging essential treatment for which medical supervision should be sought.
-
Blood and Medical Services Ltd t/a Vivo Clinic Shop
A website ad for a health clinic was banned for making misleading claims about the speed at which they could provide the results for Covid-19 tests.
-
Homeopathy UK
A website ad for a homeopathy clinic was banned for discouraging essential treatment for conditions for which medical supervision should be sought.
-
Max Mara Fashion Group Srl
A magazine ad for a clothing retailer was banned for including a model who appeared unhealthily thin.
-
Not Guilty Food Co Ltd t/a The Skinny Food Co
A Facebook post promoting spice mixes was banned as the product’s name implied that it could help consumers lose weight.
-
Jetsun Sunbeds
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
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
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
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.
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 (46)