-
Ecom7 Ltd t/a BrizaAC
A paid-for online display ad for a mini-cooler misleadingly exaggerated the effectiveness of a product.
-
HydroChill
A paid-for YouTube ad for a mini-cooler made exaggerated and unsubstantiated claims about their product’s cooling abilities, cost effectiveness and that their product was a viable and economical alternative to air conditioning.
-
UAB CommerceCore t/a NuraBreeze
A paid-for YouTube ad for a mini-cooler made exaggerated and unsubstantiated claims about their product’s cooling abilities, cost effectiveness and that their product was a viable and economical alternative to air conditioning.
-
UAB Rara Digital t/a Airabreeze
Two paid-for online display ads and a paid-for YouTube ad for a mini-cooler made exaggerated and unsubstantiated claims about their product’s cooling abilities, cost effectiveness and that their product was a viable and economical alternative to air conditioning.
-
Formulapower/fuelcat Ltd t/a Fuel Cat
A website for a company selling fuel catalysts made unsubstantiated claims that their products could improve engine efficiency.
-
Living and Home Ltd
A product listing made misleading and unsubstantiated savings claims.
-
Petchip.Network
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
A cashback promotion on the Samsung website caused unnecessary disappointment and wasn’t administered fairly.
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 (8)