Rulings (25)
  • Eastern Savings and Loans Credit Union

    • Upheld
    • Social media (paid ad)
    • 18 March 2026

    A paid-for Facebook ad for a credit union irresponsibly encouraged the purchase of non-essential items through the use of credit, particularly in relation to funding Black Friday and Christmas purchases.

  • Riverside Credit Union Ltd

    • Upheld
    • Social media (paid ad)
    • 18 March 2026

    A paid-for Facebook post for a credit union irresponsibly encouraged excessive spending through the use of credit, particularly in relation to funding non-essential Christmas purchases.

  • Smart Money Cymru Community Bank

    • Upheld
    • Social media (paid ad)
    • 18 March 2026

    A paid-for Facebook post for a credit union irresponsibly encouraged excessive spending through the use of credit, particularly in relation to Christmas.

  • Whaleco UK Ltd t/a Temu

    • Upheld
    • Social media (paid ad)
    • 18 February 2026

    Two paid-for Facebook ads for Temu were misleading by contradicting the terms and conditions that applied to an advertised promotion.

  • CB Payments Ltd t/a Coinbase

    • Upheld
    • Poster, Video on demand
    • 28 January 2026

    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

    • Upheld
    • Social media (paid ad), Website (own site)
    • 21 January 2026

    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

    • Upheld
    • Search (paid), Website (own site)
    • 07 January 2026

    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

    • Upheld
    • Search (paid)
    • 07 January 2026

    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 t/a lst Central Insurance Claimline

    • Upheld
    • Search (paid), Website (own site)
    • 07 January 2026

    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

    • Upheld
    • 24 December 2025

    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

    • Upheld
    • 24 December 2025

    A TV ad for a travel insurance company misleadingly claimed that there was no age limit to their service.

  • OTTY Sleep Ltd

    • Upheld
    • Website (own site)
    • 17 December 2025

    A website page for a mattress company made misleading savings claims.

  • AGN Events t/a Rock N Roll Circus

    • Upheld
    • Social media (own site)
    • 26 November 2025

    An Instagram post by Rock N Roll Circus failed to include all the significant conditions of a promotion.

  • Storage Giant Ltd

    • Upheld
    • Email, Website (own site)
    • 26 November 2025

    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

    • Upheld
    • Social media (paid ad)
    • 26 November 2025

    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

    • Upheld
    • Social media (paid ad), Email
    • 05 November 2025

    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)

    • Upheld
    • National press
    • 20 August 2025

    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

    • Upheld
    • Social media (own site)
    • 13 August 2025

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

  • Monzo Bank Ltd

    • Not upheld
    • Television
    • 09 July 2025

    A TV ad for Monzo and ITV Sport was obviously recognisable as an ad.

  • Wowcher Ltd

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

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