-
Manchestersalerent.co.uk
A house listing on an estate agent’s website was banned as the property was no longer available for purchase.
-
OverStreet.co.uk
A house listing on an estate agent’s website was banned as the property was no longer available for purchase.
-
In The Style Fashion Ltd t/a In the Style
A website and Instagram post by an online fashion retailer were banned for implying that all their products were included in an offer when this was not actually the case.
-
James Murray Solicitors
A radio ad for a law film was not likely to cause unjustifiable distress and did not breach the BCAP Code.
-
Lidl Great Britain Ltd
Two leaflets, a website, and two newspaper ads for Lidl products were banned for quoting unsubstantiated RRP claims.
-
KS Competitions Ltd
A website ad promoting a competition to win hair products breached the CAP Code for not explaining the free entry route and for stating that its closing date would be extended if all tickets were not sold.
-
Rightio Ltd
A paid-for Google Ad for a plumbing service misleadingly stated that a call-out charge did not apply for diagnostic work carried out by engineers.
-
Rightmove Group Ltd t/a Rightmove
A TV ad did not depict gender stereotypes in a way that was likely to cause harm.
-
Omaze Inc
A website promotion for a house raffle competition did not clearly explain the free route entry.
-
The Trade Centre Group plc t/a The Trade Centre UK, The Trade Centre Wales
A radio ad for a used car dealer was banned for presenting the terms and conditions in an unclear and ambiguous manner.
-
Anglian Windows Ltd t/a Anglian Home Improvements
A website ad for home appliances was banned for making misleading savings claims.
-
Online Tax Rebates Ltd
A website ad for tax rebate quotes did not misleadingly imply consumers could obtain an estimate before deciding whether to proceed with a claim.
-
BOXT Ltd
A YouTube and TV ad for a BOXT boiler was banned for making misleading price comparison claims.
-
Telefonica UK Ltd t/a O2
Two newspaper ads for O2 made misleading claims about the total cost of an iPad and Surface Pros.
-
Grapevine Europe Ltd
A TV ad for a car buying comparison site misled consumers about what personal information was needed to obtain valuations from their website.
-
Sky UK Ltd
A TV ad misleadingly implied Sky offered the UK’s lowest-priced superfast broadband.
-
Boohoo.com UK Ltd
Discount claims in an email and website misleadingly implied all products would be discounted and a countdown clock on the website misleadingly implied the offers were time-limited.
-
Clear Score Technology Ltd t/a ClearScore
A TV ad for a financial technology company did not make clear that pre-approved offers would be subject to additional checks by the lender prior to approval.
-
Hydro Solutions Fylde Ltd t/a Elite Competitions
A website page for prize competitions was misleading because the free entry route was unclear, the closing date was extended without good reason and a prize of 70% of ticket sales was not a reasonable equivalent to the advertised prizes.
-
I Saw it First Ltd
A text message and a website for an online fashion retailer misleadingly implied a promotion was applicable to all products and that, by using a countdown clock, discount offers were time-limited.
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 (40)