-
Imiracle (HK) Ltd t/a ELFBAR
A poster ad and digital billboard ad for Elfbar vapes misleadingly omitted information about limited recycling options, mislead about the environmental benefit the products offered and misleadingly highlighted an environmental benefit that comes from a legal obligation which also impacts competing products.
-
Renault UK Ltd t/a Dacia, Renault
A paid-for Meta ad misleading claimed that a hybrid car drove “Up to 80% electric driving in the city”, which was unclear.
-
Harvey Water Softeners Ltd
A website that claimed consumers could “save up to £1100” and reduce energy bills by 30% was misleading and couldn’t be substantiated.
-
Codeway Dijital Hizmetler Anonim Sirketi t/a Codeway
A paid-for Instagram ad misleadingly exaggerated the capabilities of an AI photo-editing app.
-
Repsol SA
A paid-for online display ad omitted significant information about the overall impact of the business’ carbon footprint.
-
Hamilton Direct Ltd
A website that claimed pellets for fuel tanks could restore lost performance and reduce emissions was misleading.
-
4AIR LLC
A paid-for Google ad, for 4AIR LLC misleadingly understated the environmental impact of their service.
-
EE Ltd t/a EE
Ads for EE did not provide sufficient information for consumers to verify comparisons with identifiable competitors and inadequately signposted consumers to such information.
-
People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) Foundation t/a PETA
A billboard for PETA was unlikely to cause serious or widespread offence and was responsibly targeted.
-
6G Internet Ltd
A leaflet and a website for a broadband provider misleadingly implied that a sixth-generation mobile network existed and was able to be used by consumers.
-
One Source Digital Ltd
A paid-for Facebook ad for an ECO funding and government grant scheme misleadingly implied that the company was endorsed by or affiliated with the UK Government.
-
Prime Star Shop Ltd t/a Branshaws
A press ad for an Electric Heater misleadingly implied that their mini heater provided a viable alternative to gas central heating and that it could save consumers money compared to gas central heating.
-
Sky UK Ltd
The website for Sky Business broadband made savings claims that were not available to all consumers and misleading price comparisons.
-
Vodafone Ltd t/a Vodafone
Pages on Vodafone’s website, two national press ads, a promoted Tweet, a TV ad and a radio ad misleadingly claimed to offer “The UK’s only Phone Buy-Back Guarantee.”
-
Fortress Energy Solutions Ltd
A leaflet for a voltage optimiser products retailer misleadingly claimed the product could save on energy bills.
-
Hyundai Motor UK Ltd
A digital billboard, YouTube video and marketing brochure advertising Hyundai’s IONIQ 5 model, misleadingly claimed that the vehicle could charge from 10% to 80% in 18 minutes using a 350 kW charger.
-
John Mills Ltd t/a JML Direct
A TV ad for a draught seal misleadingly exaggerated the efficacy of the product.
-
Anglian Water Services Ltd t/a Anglian Water
A TV ad and video on demand (VOD) ad for a water company misleadingly omitted material information about its history of releasing sewage into the environment.
-
Severn Trent Water Ltd
A TV ad for a water company did not mislead or omit significant information.
-
The Business Catalyst Ltd
A blog post on the website for a business software provider made claims about the functionality of another software without holding adequate substantiation for those claims.
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 (42)