-
DBZ Marketplace Online Ltd t/a Debenhams
Two video display banners for Debenhams made misleading savings claims.
-
John Lewis plc
A paid-for Facebook ad and an online display ad for John Lewis made misleading savings claims.
-
Shop Direct Home Shopping Ltd t/a Very
Two website pages for Very made misleading savings claims.
-
This is Enough Ltd
A website, LinkedIn post and GoFundMe page promoting DNA testing kits for victims of sexual assault made misleading claims about the incidence of rapes and the potential for evidence gathered using their self-testing kit to be admissible in court.
-
The Professional Development Consortium Ltd t/a CPD Standards Office
Two paid-for Meta ads for a training accreditation company made misleading comparative claims with identifiable competitors which weren’t supported by evidence and couldn’t be verified by consumers.
-
Bakkavor Ltd
A promotion featured on the packaging of a cookie dough dessert misleadingly implied that particular products were included in the promotion, causing unnecessary disappointment.
-
Centre of CPD Excellence
A website for an accreditation company made misleading claims it had panels of specialists, independent industry experts, accreditation against internationally recognised standards and official relationships with insurance partners.
-
Whaleco UK Ltd t/a Temu
Two paid-for Facebook ads for Temu were misleading by contradicting the terms and conditions that applied to an advertised promotion.
-
OTTY Sleep Ltd
A website page for a mattress company made misleading savings claims.
-
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.
-
Amazing Giveaways Ltd
A Facebook post for a prize draw wasn't administered fairly and caused unnecessary disappointment.
-
Thomas Keith Ltd t/a Thomas Keith Independent School
A paid-for Google ad made misleading claims about the location and ranking of a school.
-
Wowcher Ltd
A website failed to administer a promotion fairly and caused unnecessary disappointment.
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 (16)