-
EE Ltd t/a EE
A website failed to directly qualify 'unlimited' claims.
-
Vodafone Ltd t/a vodafone
A website made misleading savings claims and implied that a promotional price was time-limited when this wasn't the case.
-
Living and Home Ltd
A product listing made misleading and unsubstantiated savings claims.
-
Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals t/a RSPCA
A YouTube video, TV ad and poster didn't misleadingly represent the welfare standards afforded to animals farmed under the RSPCA Assured scheme.
-
CityFibre Holdings Ltd
A direct mailing wasn't misleading.
-
Octopus Energy Ltd
Two paid-for social media ads, two website landing pages, a radio ad, a billboard and an email for Octopus Energy didn't include adequate substantiation.
-
Montdog Ltd t/a Wild Pack
Two posts for dogfood company on their Instagram page featured videos of Geogia Toffolo made misleading claims that other pet food products posed significant health risks or led to chronic diseases, the provenance of ingredients in other pet food products and discredited or denigrated other competitors’ products.
-
Vodafone Ltd
Claims on Vodafone’s website which contained references to reliability and coverage failed to objectively compare one or more material, relevant, verifiable and representative features.
-
Barclays Bank plc
A magazine ad was unlikely to give a misleading impression of Barclay’s overall contribution to carbon dioxide and greenhouse gas emissions.
-
Shell UK Ltd
A TV ad didn’t give a misleading impression of Shell’s environmental impact.
-
TotalEnergies SE
A paid-for X ad for TotalEnergies omitted material information about the proportion of their overall business activities that comprised lower-carbon activities.
-
Hutchison 3G UK Ltd t/a Three Mobile
A national press ad, two paid-for Meta ads and a website for Three Mobile didn’t make misleading ‘best value’ claims.
-
OceanSaver Ltd
A website and TV ad made unsubstantiated environmental claims.
-
EE Ltd t/a EE
A TV, radio, paid-for social media and digital poster ad for EE made unsubstantiated claims about the performance and capabilities of a Wi-Fi router.
-
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.
-
EDF Energy Ltd
A radio ad was misleading as it omitted information and didn’t make the basis of the claims made in the ad clear.
-
ScottishPower Energy Retail Ltd t/a Scottish Power
A TV ad featuring George Clarke wasn't quickly recognisable as an ad and led viewers to believe they were watching a programme.
-
Lloyds Bank plc
A paid-for LinkedIn post for Lloyds Bank was misleading as it omitted significant information about the company’s environmental impact.
-
Samsung Electronics (UK) Ltd t/a Samsung
A cashback promotion on the Samsung website caused unnecessary disappointment and wasn’t administered fairly.
-
Wizz Air Hungary Ltd
A paid-for Google ad for Wizz Air gave a misleading impression of their flights’ environmental impact by not making the basis of comparative claims clear or providing verifying information.
-
Shop Direct Home Shopping Ltd t/a Very, very.co.uk, Littlewoods, littlewoods.com
Media: Internet
Topic: Appliances, electronics and machinery -
Samsung Electronics (UK) Ltd t/a Samsung
Topic: Computers, phones and telecoms