Rulings (17)
  • Charlie Johnson

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

    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

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

    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

    • Upheld
    • Social media (paid ad), Website (own site)
    • 15 October 2025

    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

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

    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

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

    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.

  • Lloyds Bank plc

    • Upheld
    • 20 August 2025

    A national press ad for Lloyds Banking Group, seen on 25 March 2025, included a photo of a black horse galloping past new homes with building work underway. Large text stated “£19.5 billion for social housing. And that’s just the start”. Smaller text underneath stated “Everyone deserves a safe place to call home. That’...

  • Amazing Giveaways Ltd

    • Upheld
    • 13 August 2025

    A Facebook post for a prize draw wasn't administered fairly and caused unnecessary disappointment.

  • Wowcher Ltd

    • Upheld
    • Website (own site)
    • 02 July 2025

    A website failed to administer a promotion fairly and caused unnecessary disappointment.

  • Cambridge Corporate Consultants Ltd t/a The Claims Guide

    • Upheld
    • Social media (own site)
    • 16 April 2025

    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

    • Upheld
    • Website (own site)
    • 16 April 2025

    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

    • Upheld
    • Television
    • 12 March 2025

    A teleshopping presentation made unsubstantiated price and savings claims. 

  • Meggan Kirkland

    • Upheld
    • Social media (influencer or affiliate ad)
    • 19 February 2025

    A promotion on Meggan Kirkland’s Instagram account wasn’t administered fairly.

  • Tesco Stores Ltd

    • Not upheld
    • Digital outdoor
    • 12 February 2025

    An outdoor digital poster comparing the Tesco Clubcard and Sainsbury’s Nectar loyalty card schemes wasn’t misleading.

  • Beer52 Ltd

    • Upheld
    • Email
    • 18 December 2024

    Two email promotions omitted significant conditions.

  • Origin Sleep UK Ltd t/a Origin Mattress

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

    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.

  • Churchill Retirement Living Ltd

    • Upheld
    • National newspaper (paid ad)
    • 04 December 2024

    A national newspaper ad failed to include the significant conditions of a promotion, including a closing date.

  • Samsung Electronics (UK) Ltd

    • Upheld
    • Internet (website content)
    • 27 November 2024

    A website promotion misleadingly described a promotional item as “free”, did not make clear promotional items would have to be purchased upfront before being redeemed via a cashback mechanism and omitted significant conditions.