Rulings (81)
  • 2XU UK Limited

    • Upheld
    • Social media (paid ad)
    • 16 April 2025

    A paid-for Instagram ad for 2xu Recovery Compression Tights made medical claims without holding the applicable conformity marking and were not registered with the MHRA.

  • Beautyjenics Ltd

    • Upheld
    • Social media (paid ad)
    • 16 April 2025

    A paid-for Facebook ad for Beautyjenics, a cosmetic treatment provider, irresponsibly pressured consumers into booking, and trivialised the risks of, “liquid BBLs” (Brazilian Butt Lift) and exploited women’s insecurities surrounding body image.

  • Bomb Doll Aesthetics

    • Upheld
    • Social media (paid ad)
    • 16 April 2025

    A paid-for Facebook ad for Bomb Doll Aesthetics, a Black Friday promotion, irresponsibly pressured consumers into booking, and trivialised the risks of, “liquid BBLs” (Brazilian Butt Lift).

  • CCskinlondondubai

    • Upheld
    • Social media (paid ad)
    • 16 April 2025

    A paid-for Facebook ad for CCskinlondondubai, a cosmetic treatment provider, irresponsibly pressured consumers into booking, and trivialised the risks of, “liquid BBLs” (Brazilian Butt Lift) and exploited women’s insecurities surrounding body image.

  • EME Aesthetics & Beauty Academy Ltd

    • Upheld
    • Social media (paid ad)
    • 16 April 2025

    An Instagram ad for EME Aesthetics, a Black Friday promotion, irresponsibly pressured consumers into booking, and trivialised the risks of, “liquid BBLs” (Brazilian Butt Lift).

  • NKD Medical Ltd t/a Dr Ducu London

    • Upheld
    • Social media (paid ad)
    • 16 April 2025

    A paid-for Instagram ad for Dr. Ducu, a cosmetic treatment provider, irresponsibly pressured consumers into booking, and trivialised the risks of, “liquid BBLs” (Brazilian Butt Lift).

  • Rejuvenate Academy Ltd t/a Rejuvenate Clinics

    • Upheld
    • Social media (paid ad)
    • 16 April 2025

    A paid-for Facebook ad for Rejuvenate Clinics, a cosmetic treatment provider, irresponsibly pressured consumers into booking, and trivialised the risks of, “liquid BBLs” (Brazilian Butt Lift).

  • Foreo AB t/a Foreo

    • Upheld in part
    • Internet
    • 09 April 2025

    A product listing on Amazon made unsubstantiated claims that an IPL device could reduce or remove hair permanently and that treatments was ‘pain-free’.

  • Dawn Hazeldine t/a Stockport Counselling Services

    • Upheld
    • Internet (website content)
    • 12 March 2025

    A webpage misleadingly claimed that they were associated with the BACP and implied that they’d received training and qualifications from them when this wasn't the case.

  • INSTITUTO NATURVITA S.L. t/a Natur Vital

    • Upheld
    • 12 February 2025

    A webpage misleadingly and irresponsibly implied that hair colourants were safe for people with an allergy to PPD.

  • Visual Stress Consultancy Ltd

    • Upheld
    • Website (own site)
    • 29 January 2025

    A website made unsubstantiated claims that tinted glasses could be used for driving at night and condoned unsafe driving.   

  • Health Line

    • Upheld
    • Social media (paid ad)
    • 22 January 2025

    Two paid-for Facebook ads misleadingly exaggerated the capabilities of laser eye treatment, falsely implied that they directly provided laser eye treatment themselves and didn't make clear that they received a commission for their service. 

  • The Essence Vault Ltd

    • Upheld
    • Social media (paid ad)
    • 15 January 2025

    A paid-for Facebook ad made misleading pricing claims.   

  • Marren Healthcare Ltd

    • Upheld
    • Website (own site)
    • 08 January 2025

    A website for a rehab clinic referral company falsely implied that they were acting for purposes outside their business, that they owned clinics and that local rehab centres could be accessed using their website. They also didn't make clear that they received a commission for their services.

  • Action Rehab

    • Upheld
    • Website (own site)
    • 18 December 2024

    A website for a rehab clinic referral company falsely implied that they were acting for purposes outside their business, that they owned clinics and that they had been approved by a public body. It also failed to make clear that they received a commission for their service.

  • Addiction Recovery Systems Ltd t/a Rehab Guide

    • Upheld
    • Internet (website content)
    • 18 December 2024

    A website for a rehab clinic referral company falsely implied that they were acting for purposes outside their business and that they provided treatment directly at clinics they operated and also failed to make clear that they received a commission for their service.

  • Better Health and Wellness

    • Upheld
    • Social media (paid ad)
    • 18 December 2024

    A paid-for Facebook ad was misleading as it didn’t make clear the nature of the content people would be served if they engaged with the ad.

  • Health and Wellness

    • Upheld
    • Social media (paid ad)
    • 18 December 2024

    A paid-for Facebook ad was misleading as it didn’t make clear the nature of the content people would be served if they engaged with the ad and also exaggerated the capability of laser eye treatment.

  • Help 4 Addiction Ltd

    • Upheld
    • Website (own site)
    • 18 December 2024

    A website for a rehab clinic referral company falsely implied that they were acting for purposes outside their business, that they provided treatment directly at clinics they operated and that a local rehab facility could be accessed using their website. It also didn’t make clear that they received commission for...

  • Marketing VF Ltd t/a The Eco Experts

    • Upheld
    • Social media (paid ad)
    • 18 December 2024

    A paid-for Facebook ad for a laser eye surgery referral company falsely implied they were acting for purposes outside their business and that they directly provided laser eye surgery when this wasn’t the case. The ad also failed to make clear that they receive a commission for their service and misleadingly exagg...

Informally resolved (9)
  • Rakhee Mediratta

    • 24 July 2024
    • Number of complaints: 0

    Topic: Medicines, remedies and therapies

  • L'Oréal (UK) Ltd

    • 17 July 2024
    • Number of complaints: 0

    Topic: Beauty products, grooming and hygiene

  • Jahangir Group Ltd t/a ShopVistaa

    • 26 June 2024
    • Number of complaints: 0

    Topic: Health conditions

  • Whaleco UK Ltd t/a Temu

    • 26 June 2024
    • Number of complaints: 0

    Topic: Medical devices

  • British Hair Clinic (unconfirmed)

    • 19 June 2024
    • Number of complaints: 1

    Topic: Cosmetic surgery and procedures

  • Lumi Skn Ltd

    • 12 June 2024
    • Number of complaints: 1

    Topic: Medical devices

  • Pall Mall Medical (Manchester) Ltd t/a Pall Mall Cosmetics

    • 12 June 2024
    • Number of complaints: 1

    Topic: Medical procedures and services

  • Cosmetic Medical Advice UK Ltd.

    • 05 June 2024
    • Number of complaints: 1

    Topic: Beauty products, grooming and hygiene

  • L'Oréal (UK) Ltd

    • 05 June 2024
    • Number of complaints: 1

    Topic: Beauty products, grooming and hygiene