Rulings (42)
  • Imiracle (HK) Ltd t/a ELFBAR

    • Upheld
    • Poster, Digital outdoor
    • 29 November 2023

    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

    • Upheld
    • Social media (paid ad)
    • 29 November 2023

    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

    • Upheld
    • Internet (website content)
    • 15 November 2023

    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

    • Upheld
    • Social media (paid ad)
    • 18 October 2023

    A paid-for Instagram ad misleadingly exaggerated the capabilities of an AI photo-editing app.

  • Repsol SA

    • Upheld
    • Internet (display)
    • 18 October 2023

    A paid-for online display ad omitted significant information about the overall impact of the business’ carbon footprint.

  • Hamilton Direct Ltd

    • Upheld
    • Internet (website content)
    • 27 September 2023

    A website that claimed pellets for fuel tanks could restore lost performance and reduce emissions was misleading.

  • 4AIR LLC

    • Upheld
    • Search (paid)
    • 30 August 2023

    A paid-for Google ad, for 4AIR LLC misleadingly understated the environmental impact of their service.

  • EE Ltd t/a EE

    • Upheld in part
    • Poster, Television, Internet (website content), Social media (own site)
    • 23 August 2023

    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

    • Not upheld
    • Poster
    • 23 August 2023

    A billboard for PETA was unlikely to cause serious or widespread offence and was responsibly targeted.

  • 6G Internet Ltd

    • Upheld
    • Internet (website content), Leaflet
    • 16 August 2023

    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

    • Upheld
    • Social media (paid ad)
    • 16 August 2023

    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

    • Upheld in part
    • Press general
    • 16 August 2023

    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

    • Upheld in part
    • Internet (website content)
    • 26 July 2023

    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

    • Upheld
    • National press, Television, Internet (website content), Social media (own site), Radio
    • 05 July 2023

    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

    • Upheld
    • Leaflet
    • 28 June 2023

    A leaflet for a voltage optimiser products retailer misleadingly claimed the product could save on energy bills.

  • Hyundai Motor UK Ltd

    • Upheld
    • Brochure, Internet (video), Poster (digital video)
    • 28 June 2023

    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

    • Upheld
    • Television
    • 21 June 2023

    A TV ad for a draught seal misleadingly exaggerated the efficacy of the product.

  • Anglian Water Services Ltd t/a Anglian Water

    • Upheld
    • Television, Video on demand
    • 14 June 2023

    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

    • Not upheld
    • Television
    • 14 June 2023

    A TV ad for a water company did not mislead or omit significant information.

  • The Business Catalyst Ltd

    • Upheld
    • Website (own site)
    • 14 June 2023

    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.