-
AGN Events t/a Rock N Roll Circus
An Instagram post by Rock N Roll Circus failed to include all the significant conditions of a promotion.
-
Storage Giant Ltd
Two web pages and an email for a self-storage company made best price guaranteed claims without evidence to support them. They also failed to make sure that quoted prices reflected the total cost people would pay and didn’t make clear when prices were promotional or subject to significant...
-
Trip.com Travel Singapore Pte. Ltd t/a Trip.com
Two paid-for Meta ads for Trip.com for a promotion caused unnecessary disappointment and didn’t provide people with sufficient information to make an informed decision on whether or not to participate. One of the ads also misleadingly implied that an offer was available during a part...
-
Banquist Ltd t/a Winedrops
Two emails and a paid-for Instagram ad for an online wine retailer made misleading and unsubstantiated claims about the origin of their wine. They also failed to make clear the basis of the price comparisons and the significant conditions of the promotion.
-
Charlie Johnson
Two paid-for social media ads by Charlie Johnson, a business coach in the fitness industry, misleadingly implied that claimed lifestyle and earning results were typical and that a promotion was time limited when this wasn’t the case.
-
Grant Cardone Training Technologies Inc t/a Grant Cardone
A paid-for Facebook ad for an online business event by businessman Grant Cardone misleadingly implied that claimed earnings results were typical.
-
Jessica Crane Ltd
A paid-for Facebook and Instagram ad for a wealth and business coach company, run by Jessica Crane, misleadingly implied that lifestyle and earnings results were typical, misled in relation to the content of training material available for free and made unsubstantiated claims about the number of top salon owners using ...
-
Robbins Research International Inc t/a Tony Robbins
A paid-for Facebook post by Tony Robbins advertising a business coaching course misleadingly implied that claimed earnings results were typical.
-
Self Made Girl Boss Ltd
A paid-for Instagram post for a business coaching company, misleadingly implied that stated lifestyle and earning results were typical, included qualifications that contradicted the claims that they qualified, and failed to make the distinction between free and priced items clear.
-
Community Fibre Ltd
Two pages on the Community Fibre website misleadingly implied that they were the number one rated for internet provider and that they had the most 5 star reviews on third party website.
-
Lloyds Bank plc t/a Lloyds Banking Group (LBG)
A national press ad for Lloyds Bank misleadingly implied that they had made donations to social housing projects and omitted significant information that put these claims into context.
-
Amazing Giveaways Ltd
A Facebook post for a prize draw wasn't administered fairly and caused unnecessary disappointment.
-
Wowcher Ltd
A website failed to administer a promotion fairly and caused unnecessary disappointment.
-
Cambridge Corporate Consultants Ltd t/a The Claims Guide
An post on X by The Claims Guide misleadingly implied that their company was approved, endorsed or authorised by the UK Government.
-
Groupe SEB UK Ltd t/a Tefal
A website product page for a set of pans misleadingly implied that a discount offer could be used for particular products when that was not the case.
-
Shop TJC Ltd t/a Ideal World
A teleshopping presentation made unsubstantiated price and savings claims.
-
Meggan Kirkland
A promotion on Meggan Kirkland’s Instagram account wasn’t administered fairly.
-
Tesco Stores Ltd
An outdoor digital poster comparing the Tesco Clubcard and Sainsbury’s Nectar loyalty card schemes wasn’t misleading.
-
Beer52 Ltd
Two email promotions omitted significant conditions.
-
Origin Sleep UK Ltd t/a Origin Mattress
A website implied that a promotion was time limited when this wasn’t the case, made misleading and unsubstantiated savings claims and made unsubstantiated claims about the health properties of their products.
Rulings
Our rulings are published every Wednesday and set out on the public record how, following a formal 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 agree to amend or withdraw their ad without being subject to a formal ruling.
Rulings (21)