-
Dollead Technology Ltd
A paid-for search ad for a vacuum review website failed to make their commercial intent clear and falsely implied they were acting for purposes outside their trade by presenting websites used for marketing purposes as independent review sites.
-
Easy as HGV Ltd
Three websites for Heavy Goods Vehicle (HGV) training service providers made misleading claims about HGV test pass rates and falsely implied they were acting for purposes outside their business.
-
HGV Learning
A website for a Heavy Goods Vehicle (HGV) training service provider made misleading claims about HGV test pass rates.
-
HGVT Ltd
A website and pages for Heavy Goods Vehicle (HGV) training service providers made misleading claims about HGV test pass rates, the nature of a promotion and being the largest and best rated HGV training provider. The ad also falsely implied they were acting for purposes outside their business.
-
Sinointeractive Digital Marketing Co Ltd t/a trustedbuyerguide.org
A paid-for search ad for a vacuum review website failed to make their commercial intent clear and falsely implied they were acting for purposes outside their trade by presenting websites used for marketing purposes as independent review sites.
-
Xinyu International Trading Ltd t/a consumertestreports.org
A paid-for search ad for a vacuum review website failed to make their commercial intent clear and falsely implied they were acting for purposes outside their trade by presenting websites used for marketing purposes as independent review sites.
-
Practice Pal t/a Involve Education (Involve)
A website for a management information services software provider for schools made misleading and unverifiable comparative claims about competitors’ products.
-
Vodafone Ltd
Six ads for Vodafone were misleading by making an implied comparative claim without objectively comparing one or more specific verifiable features.
-
DSV Communications Ltd t/a The One Broadband
A direct mailing misleadingly suggested that people at a specific address had been identified as having poor broadband connectivity and speeds. Another issue about a circular was informally resolved after the advertiser amended their ad.
-
Starlink Internet Services Ltd
A banner ad for an internet provider omitted material information about a promotional price offer.
-
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.
-
Zzoomm plc
A circular letter for a broadband provider wasn’t obviously identifiable as marketing material and misled consumers by presenting it in a way that implied they were important notices on broadband disruption.
-
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.
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 (16)