-
North Wests Competitions Ltd
Two Instagram posts by an influencer promoting a free giveaway were banned for not being obviously identifiable as ads.
-
Flexible Digital Solutions Ltd
A paid-for Facebook ad and a website ad for a debt advice service were banned for exaggerating the speed and ease of the process, trivialising the application process and for not stating the risks and fees associated with IVAs.
-
TFLI Ltd
A paid-for Facebook ad and a website ad for a debt advice service were banned for exaggerating the speed and ease of the process, exaggerating the amount of debt that could be written off, as well as several other issues.
-
Person(s) unknown t/a equityreleaseplus.co.uk
A paid-for website ad promoting an equity release company was banned for misleadingly implying their service was associated with Martin Lewis.
-
Coinfloor Ltd
A press ad for a Bitcoin and cryptocurrency exchange was banned for irresponsibly suggesting that purchasing Bitcoin was a good or secure way to invest one’s savings or pension and for failing to make clear the risks associated with Bitcoin investments.
-
Team HARD Racing Ltd
A paid-for Instagram post and a website post promoting a competition to win a car breached the CAP Code as it was administered unfairly.
-
Watches of Switzerland Company Ltd t/a Goldsmiths
A website post by a jewellery retailer was banned for making misleading savings claims about a pair of earrings.
-
Camden Town Brewery Ltd
A TV ad for a brewery was banned for presenting a giveaway of free items in an unclear way that confused it with a prize draw. The same ad was not likely to appeal strongly to children.
-
DSG Retail Ltd t/a Currys PC World
A TV ad for Currys PC World was banned for irresponsibly encouraging excessive spending through the use of credit, particularly in relation to purchasing higher value Christmas gifts with a ‘pay later’ payment method.
-
I Saw it First Ltd
A website ad for an online clothing retailer was banned for misleadingly implying that discount codes and discounted prices applied to certain products when this was not the case.
-
Smart Metering Communications Body Ltd t/a Smart Energy GB
A TV and radio ad for a smart meter which stated that the product could help consumers to save money on their bills was not found to be misleading.
-
Molly-Mae Hague t/a mollymaehague
An Instagram post by influencer Molly Mae Hague promoting a prize draw broke the CAP Code as there was no evidence that the prize was awarded in accordance with the laws of chance or under the supervision of an independent person.
-
DSG Retail Ltd t/a Currys PC World
Two TV ads for Currys PC World were banned for misleadingly implying that consumers were able to purchase a TV for half price when this was not the case.
-
Hutchison 3G UK Ltd t/a 3
A TV, website and paid-for search ad by Three Mobile were banned for not holding adequate substantiation to support the claim that they were the ‘best network for data.”
-
Noir Consulting Ltd
Three job ads on a recruitment company’s website were not found to be misleading.
-
ITonlinelearning Ltd
Two ads on two job vacancy websites were banned for misleadingly implying that a genuine job was being advertised.
-
Fidelitas Group Ltd
Five paid-for internet search ads and a website ad for a debt advice service were banned for misleadingly suggesting their service was endorsed by Government bodies and for suggesting they were qualified to provide debt counselling despite not being authorised by the FCA as experts in this field.
-
National Direct Service t/a Step Debt Support
A paid-for internet search ad and a website ad for a debt advice service were banned for exaggerating the speed and ease with which debt could be reduced and for misleadingly suggesting associations with a debt charity and the Government. The matter was referred to CAP’s Compliance team.
-
Studio Retail Ltd
A TV and video on demand ad for a shopping retailer was banned for irresponsibly encouraging excessive spending.
-
Manchestersalerent.co.uk
A house listing on an estate agent’s website was banned as the property was no longer available for purchase.
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 (44)