Rulings (37)
  • 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.

  • Solihull Health Check Clinic

    • Upheld
    • Internet (on own site)
    • 14 October 2020

    A website ad for a health clinic was banned for stating that a COVID-19 antibody test was 100% accurate and for implying that a positive result would show that people were immune to the disease.

  • XMedical Ltd t/a Corona Test Centre

    • Upheld
    • Internet (social networking), Website (own site)
    • 14 October 2020

    A paid-for Facebook ad and a website post for a COVID-19 test site were banned for implying that a positive antibody test would show that people were immune to the disease.

  • Comfort Click Ltd t/a WeightWorld.co.uk, ShytoBuy.co.uk

    • Upheld
    • 07 October 2020

    An Amazon listing for a foot and leg massage therapy machine was banned for making medical claims despite the product not being a CE-marked medical device.

  • Skinny Clinic t/a Germaine Smith and Michel Thompson

    • Upheld
    • 07 October 2020

    Three Instagram posts by a weight loss injection provider which made irresponsible weight loss claims and a website ad which promoted prescription-only medicines to the general public were banned.

  • Skinny Revolution Ltd

    • Upheld
    • 07 October 2020

    Four Instagram post by a weight loss injection provider were banned for making irresponsible weight loss claims, for promoting prescription-only medicines to the general public and for exploiting people’s insecurities around body image during lockdown.

  • SkinnyJab Ltd t/a SkinnyJab

    • Upheld
    • 07 October 2020

    Two Instagram posts by an influencer in association with a weight loss injection provider were banned for promoting prescription-only medicines to the general public and for irresponsibly implying that the product could be used by people who were not overweight.

  • 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.