-
CB Payments Ltd t/a Coinbase
A video on demand ad and three posters for Coinbase, a cryptocurrency trading platform, irresponsibly trivialised the risks of cryptocurrency investment and implied it was a solution to financial concerns associated with the cost of living.
-
Whiskey & Wealth Club Ltd
A paid-for Facebook ad, landing page and website for a whiskey cask investment company made misleading claims about investment returns. The ad also failed to make clear that cask whiskey investments were unregulated and that the value of investments was variable.
-
Dean Harrison
Three paid-for Google search listings and three websites for an accident claims management company falsely implied that they were acting for purposes outside their business by implying they were a car insurance provider and didn’t make their commercial intent clear.
-
Freedom Debt Ltd
Two paid-for Google search listings and two websites for an accident claims management company falsely implied that they were acting for purposes outside their business by implying they were a car insurance provider and didn’t make their commercial intent clear.
-
Person(s) unknown
A paid-for Google search ad and a website landing page for an accident management company falsely implied that they were acting for purposes outside their business by implying they were a car insurance provider and didn’t make their commercial intent clear.
-
Cult Wines Ltd
A website page for a wine investment company made misleading claims about investment returns. The ad also failed to make clear that wine investment was unregulated, that the value of investments was variable and that examples of past performance...
-
Howserv Ltd t/a Staysure Travel
A TV ad for a travel insurance company misleadingly claimed that there was no age limit to their service.
-
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.
-
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.
-
Monzo Bank Ltd
A TV ad for Monzo and ITV Sport was obviously recognisable as an ad.
-
Wowcher Ltd
A website failed to administer a promotion fairly and caused unnecessary disappointment.
-
Neilson Financial Services Ltd t/a British Seniors
A TV ad didn't show an infant in an unsafe sleep position.
-
Turner Lewis Ltd
A TikTok post and a website misled people about the nature of their business, omitted material information, took advantage of people's inexperience and credulity and failed to be upfront about significant qualifications.
-
Rosenthal Capital Ltd t/a ULEZProsperity
A website made misleading and unsubstantiated investment returns claims and promoted a financial product in a way that couldn't be easily understood.
-
FX Compared Ltd t/a FXcompared
A website made misleading savings claims and implied that the international money transfer providers they recommended were the top providers compared to all other providers when they only included providers from a limited sector of the market. It also failed to make clear that a result listing was an ad.
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 (29)