-
Nectar Sleep Ltd
The homepage for the Nectar Sleep website made misleading saving claims and didn’t make the basis of their savings claims clear. They also made comparisons against other brands’ prices without ensuring the claims were based on the actual price of the product.
-
BoyleSports (Gibraltar) Ltd t/a BoyleSports
A paid-for online display ad for a gambling company encouraged gambling behaviour that was socially irresponsible and could lead to financial harm by encouraging frequent and repetitive participation.
-
Capgroup Inc Ltd
A website for a whiskey cask and gold coin investment company made misleading claims about investment returns. As well as misleadingly presenting an incorrect Trustpilot score. The ad also failed to make clear that cask whiskey investments were unregulated and that examples of past performance weren’t necessarily...
-
Motorpoint Ltd
A paid-for Instagram ad for a used car retailer made misleading savings claims.
-
Parc AI Ltd t/a Parc
A leaflet for a car parking app didn’t make clear it was an ad and caused unjustified distress by resembling a parking ticket.
-
Fortore Ltd
A paid-for Facebook ad for an investment competition website failed to make clear that gold and precious metal investment was unregulated and that the value of investments was variable.
-
Montford Group Ltd t/a Brittania Bullion
A paid-for LinkedIn ad for a gold investment company failed to make clear that physical gold investment was unregulated and that the value of investments was variable.
-
RE/MAX Property Specialists t/a Billie Dunlop
A leaflet and a Facebook post for an estate agency service made misleading and unverifiable comparisons with identifiable competitors.
-
Rosland Capital Ltd
A paid-for Facebook ad for a gold and precious metal specialist failed to make clear that gold and precious metal investment was unregulated and that the value of investments was variable.
-
Sourced Consultancy Ltd t/a Oak & Mason
A paid-for Meta ad for a gold investment company failed to make clear that physical gold investment was unregulated and that the value of investments was variable. The ad also broke the rules by referencing an example of past performance that was unrepresentative.
-
Tarvos Ltd t/a 7879
A paid-for Meta ad for an online retailer of gold and platinum jewellery failed to make clear that physical gold and precious metal investment was unregulated and that the value of investments was variable.
-
DUSK (Retail) Ltd t/a DUSK
Four webpages for an online bed retailer made misleading savings claims.
-
Wowcher Ltd t/a Wowcher
A promotion on the Wowcher website wasn’t administered fairly and caused unnecessary disappointment.
-
Boots UK Ltd t/a boots.com
An online display ad for Boots made misleading savings claims. Another ad was investigated but it didn’t break the rules.
-
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.
-
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.
-
CC Response NW Ltd
Two paid-for Google search listings and a web landing page for an accident claims management company failed to make the nature of their service clear, misleadingly implied there was no cost to consumers and made misleading claims in relation to potential savings.
-
Exclusive Law Ltd
Three paid-for Google search listings and a website for an accident claims management company failed to make the nature of their service clear, misleadingly implied there was no cost to consumers and irresponsibly discouraged consumers from approaching their insurance provider. They also misleadingly implied that the u...
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 (51)