-
GetAgent Ltd
A website for estate agent referrals did not make it clear that some results were marketing communications, and claimed to make ‘impartial recommendations’ which was misleading.
-
CrypticKits
A TikTok post and Instagram post misleadingly implied that people could buy football shirts for £1
-
Borthwick Group (Energy) Ltd
A paid-for Facebook ad from a credit broker misleadingly suggested that it had been endorsed or approved by the BBC.
-
FanCraze Technologies Inc
A Tweet from Essex County Cricket Club for NFTs wasn’t obviously identifiable as a marketing communication; didn’t make it clear which cryptowallet a prospective buyer would need; didn’t make it clear that it was referring to an investment product or that gas fees applied; and failed to illustrate the...
-
TMS Legal Ltd
Two paid-for TikTok posts were misleading, as they implied testimonials featured were from genuine customers of Vanquis Bank and Moneybarn No.1.
-
THG Nutrition Limited t/a My Protein
A TikTok post for a MyProtein promotion did not set out qualifying criteria for entry clearly and omitted significant conditions.
-
Hurtigruten UK Ltd t/a Hurtigruten
A website for Hurtigruten, an expedition cruise company, featured a misleading savings claim.
-
Imiracle (HK) Ltd t/a Elfbar
A post for Elf Bar on Discord directly promoted unlicensed nicotine-containing e-liquids in online media.
-
Dakik Saglik Medikal Turizm A.S. t/a Clincexpert Hospital
Two paid-for Facebook ads for a cosmetic clinic in Türkiye was irresponsible for pressuring consumers into purchasing cosmetic interventions; making the claim “Defined and strong hair in just one day” which couldn’t be substantiated, exploiting insecurities around body image; and misleadingly omi...
-
Hutch Games Ltd
A listing for the game "F1 Clash - Car Racing Manager" on the Apple App store did not make it sufficiently clear that the game contained loot boxes.
-
Hutch Games Ltd
A listing for the game "Rebel Racing" on the Google Play store did not make it sufficiently clear that the game contained loot boxes.
-
Prettylittlething.com Ltd t/a Prettylittlething.com
An email ad failed to administer a pricing promotion via a discount code fairly.
-
The Diesel Car Company
A listing for a car had a misleading pricing quote.
-
London and Quadrant Housing Trust
A poster for shared ownership property was not administered fairly and did not make the terms of the promotion sufficiently clear.
-
DFDS Seaways Ltd t/a DFDS, dfdsseaways.co.uk
A website for a ferry operator misleadingly claimed that fares were from £47, when the £47 one-way ticket was only available when booked as part of a four-person cabin.
-
Key Retirement Solutions Ltd t/a Key Equity Release
A TV ad for an equity release mortgage product exploited the financial fears of the audience and did not make the risks and suitability of the product sufficiently clear.
-
AOS Trading Ltd t/a Rattan Hut
An email, website, and paid-for Instagram story for a garden furniture retailer misleadingly claimed that items were free despite consumers having to meet a minimum order value to use the voucher codes.
-
Versus Law Ltd
A page on the Flight Delay Claim website implied that passengers of flights cancelled or delayed over three hours were guaranteed compensation and did not make clear that there were advertiser’s fees or that consumers could only apply for compensation for Loganair flights through their service if they had first c...
-
Blackford Casks Ltd t/a Whisky Investment Partners
An online display ad, website and two paid-for Facebook posts for a whisky cask investment company made misleading and unsubstantiated investment return claims, did not make the risks involved in whisky investment clear and took advantage of consumers’ inexperience and credulity.
-
London Cask Co Ltd t/a London Cask Company
Two national newspaper ads, a website and a paid-for Google ad for a whisky cask investment company made misleading and unsubstantiated investment return claims and did not make the risks involved in whisky investment 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 (61)