-
Microlyscs LLC t/a The Crazy Cap
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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 (37)