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 (5)

Formulapower/fuelcat Ltd t/a Fuel Cat
- Upheld
- Website (own site)
- 27 August 2025
A website for a company selling fuel catalysts made unsubstantiated claims that their products could improve engine efficiency.
Living and Home Ltd
- Upheld
- Website (commercial classified)
- 07 May 2025
A product listing made misleading and unsubstantiated savings claims.
Petchip.Network
- Upheld
- Search (paid)
- 12 March 2025
Two paid-for Google search ads for Petchip.Network misleadingly implied they were an approved database to comply with the legal requirements for microchipping cats and dogs.
Samsung Electronics (UK) Ltd t/a Samsung
- Upheld
- Website (own site)
- 11 December 2024
A cashback promotion on the Samsung website caused unnecessary disappointment and wasn’t administered fairly.
Wenzhou Xinyu Maoyi Youxian Gongsi t/a XINYU TRADE
- Upheld
- Social media (influencer or affiliate ad)
- 25 September 2024
Two Instagram stories on Mel Lloyd’s account featuring affiliate links weren't obviously identifiable as ads.

Informally resolved (0)

Mail order cases (0)

Database cases (0)