-
British Gas Services Ltd t/a British Gas
A paid-for Meta ad for British Gas, which promoted switching to a heat pump, didn’t have enough evidence to demonstrate that ‘up to’ saving claims could be achieved by a significant proportion of people and also failed to include all material information.
-
Centrica Hive Ltd t/a Hive
A national press ad for Hive promoting solar panels didn’t have enough evidence to demonstrate that ‘up to’ saving claims could be achieved by a significant proportion of people and also failed to include all material information.
-
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.
-
WashWater UK Ltd
A brochure for a water conditioning and purifying system manufacturer misleadingly implied their water treatment systems could target and remove existing limescale, reduce hot water bills and help improve certain skin conditions.
-
Virgin Media Ltd
A TV ad for Virgin Media didn’t provide sufficient information to enable people to verify comparisons with identifiable competitors. Another issue was investigated but it didn’t break the rules.
-
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.
-
GGRS Energie Ltd
A regional press ad for GGRS Energie made exaggerated and unsubstantiated savings claims about solar installation and failed to include all material information.
-
Good Energy Ltd
A paid-for Meta ad for Good Energy made unsubstantiated savings claims about greener home installation and failed to include all material information.
-
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.
-
Stove Industry Alliance Ltd t/a Stove Industry Association
A website for the Stove Industry Association made unsubstantiated claims that modern stoves emitted significantly lower emissions than open fireplaces or older stoves, and that they were a low-emission way to heat a home. It also failed to make the basis of comparative environmental claims clear.
-
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.
-
Assured Food Standards t/a Red Tractor
A TV ad for Assured Food Standard’s Red Tractor Scheme failed to make clear exactly which standards it was referring to, or the degree to which those standards were being met when using the claim “farmed with care” in conjunction with “all our standards are met.”
-
Shell Energy UK
A paid-for LinkedIn ad for Shell Energy didn't give a misleading impression of the overall environmental impact of Shell’s business activities.
-
Barrhead Travel Service Ltd t/a Barrhead Travel
A paid-for Google ad for a travel agency gave a misleading impression of the advertised cruises’ environmental impact by failing to make the basis of environmental claims clear and not holding robust substantiation to support them.
-
Sunshine Cruise Holidays Ltd t/a cruise 1st
A webpage advertising a cruise operator failed to make the basis of environmental and comparative claims clear, didn’t hold appropriate evidence to support such claims and omitted material information about the environmental impact of the cruises they sold.
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 (40)