-
Forisgfs UK Ltd t/a Crypto.com
Two in-app ads for Crypto.com were banned for not being sufficiently clear that the value of investments in cryptocurrency was variable and for irresponsibly encouraging investing in cryptocurrency through using a credit card.
-
Arsenal Football Club plc
A Facebook post and website post by Arsenal Football Club promoting fan tokens were banned for taking advantage of consumers’ inexperience in cryptoassets. The posts also misled consumers by not making it clear that fan tokens were a cryptoasset that had to be bought using another cryptocurrency.
-
SR2AN Ltd
An Instagram post promoting a competition to win various prizes was banned for not being administered fairly.
-
Skrill Ltd
A paid-for Reddit ad for an online wallet and money transfer service was banned for taking advantage of consumers’ lack of experience by implying that cryptocurrency investment was risk free.
-
The Hut.com Ltd
A promotional email advertising haircare products was banned for making misleading discount claims.
-
Yolé Global Pte Ltd
An Instagram post for an ice cream and frozen yogurt retailer’s promotion was banned because the prize draw was not awarded in accordance with the laws of chance.
-
CV-Library Ltd
An ad on a job vacancy website was banned for implying an employer was based in a geographical location when that was not the case.
-
CoinBurp Ltd
A Twitter bio for a cryptocurrency trading platform was banned for irresponsibly taking advantage of consumers’ inexperience and for failing to illustrate the risk of the investment.
-
Coinbase Europe Ltd t/a Coinbase
A paid-for Facebook ad for a cryptocurrency trading platform was banned for irresponsibly taking advantage of consumers’ inexperience and for failing to illustrate the risk of the investment.
-
Denhan International Ltd
A circular letter for an estate agents was banned for not being obviously identifiable as an ad.
-
Exmo Exchange Ltd
A YouTube video promoting a cryptocurrency exchange was banned for irresponsibly taking advantage of consumers’ inexperience and for failing to illustrate the risk of the investment.
-
JD Recruitment Group Ltd
A post on recruiter JD Recruitment's Facebook page was banned for being likely to cause serious offence on the grounds of race and for objectifying women.
-
Luno Money Ltd t/a Luno
A paid for display ad for a stocks and cryptocurrency trading platform was banned for irresponsibly taking advantage of consumers’ inexperience and for failing to illustrate the risk of the investment.
-
Papa John's (GB) Ltd t/a Papa John's Pizza, papa Johns
A Papa John’s website post and a Twitter post promoting cryptocurrency were banned for irresponsibly taking advantage of consumers’ lack of experience and for trivialising investment in cryptocurrency.
-
Payward Ltd t/a Kraken
A digital poster for a cryptocurrency exchange was banned for irresponsibly taking advantage of consumers’ inexperience and for failing to illustrate the risk of the investment.
-
Uber BV
A paid-for ad on The Economist app and a national press ad for Uber were banned for misleadingly implying that benefits which all operators were required to provide were unique to them.
-
eToro (UK) Ltd
A paid for display ad for a stocks and cryptocurrency trading platform was banned for irresponsibly taking advantage of consumers’ inexperience and for failing to illustrate the risk of the investment.
-
3D-Lipo Ltd
An email ad from a beauty clinic was banned for making misleading earnings claims.
-
Financial Support Systems Ltd t/a nationaldebtservice.co.uk
Three paid-for search ads and a website ad for a debt advice service were banned for misleadingly claiming that they were endorsed by the UK government and for not being able to prove that their testimonials were genuine.
-
The Hut.com Ltd
A website ad for a skincare company’s promotion was banned for not making all significant conditions of the promotion sufficiently clear.
Rulings
Our rulings are published every Wednesday and set out on the public record how, following 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, following receipt of a complaint, agreed to amend or withdraw their ad without the need for a formal investigation.
Rulings (68)