-
Alpro (UK) Ltd t/a Alpro
A poster for an almond drink was banned for making misleading environmental claims, in particular, that the product was ‘good for the planet’.
-
British Gas Services Ltd t/a British Gas
Two TV ads, a website and tweet by British Gas for their HomeCare Cover service were banned for misleadingly implying that emergency call outs were available to all customers at short notice.
-
Vodafone Ltd t/a Voxi, vodafone
A website ad for Voxi was banned for making misleading price claims.
-
salesforce UK Ltd
A Video on Demand (VOD) ad for Salesforce was not likely to cause serious or widespread offence.
-
TalkTalk Telecom Ltd t/a TalkTalk
A TV ad and an email promoting TalkTalk’s broadband service were banned for making misleading price claims.
-
Telefonica UK Ltd t/a O2
A newspaper ad for O2 was banned for making misleading comparative claims against their competitors.
-
Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board t/a AHDB
We did not uphold complaints regarding ads encouraging meat consumption.
-
Lucozade Ribena Suntory Ltd
We did not uphold complaints over an ad for Lucozade encouraging people to recycle.
-
Noble Foods Ltd
A website post about the condition of chickens for farms which supply eggs did not break the CAP Code.
-
Vodafone Ltd
A paid-for internet search ad for Vodafone was banned for claiming to be the “UK’s best mobile data network” without having adequate proof to substantiate the claim.
-
Vodafone Ltd
A website and newspaper ad for Vodafone were banned for claiming to be the “UK’s best mobile data network” without having adequate proof to substantiate the claim.
-
Hutchison 3G UK Ltd t/a Three
A TV ad for Three mobile was banned for misleading claims about their 5G offering.
-
Hyundai Motor UK Ltd
A website ad for Hyundai was banned for implying that no impurities caused by driving the Hyundai NEXO would remain in the air without having adequate substantiation to prove this was true.
-
British Telecommunications plc t/a BT
A poster for BT was banned for making misleading claims about the reliability of their full fibre broadband.
-
Grey Technology Ltd t/a Gtech
Two newspaper ads and a website ad for a vacuum cleaner were banned for implying the product could completely eliminate dust clouds without holding adequate evidence to prove this.
-
Dalradian Gold Ltd
A newspaper ad for a gold mining construction project was banned for misleadingly implying that materials extracted from the proposed mine would be used in the renewable energy industry.
-
Smart Metering Communications Body Ltd t/a Smart Energy GB
A TV and radio ad for a smart meter which stated that the product could help consumers to save money on their bills was not found to be misleading.
-
DSG Retail Ltd t/a Currys PC World
Two TV ads for Currys PC World were banned for misleadingly implying that consumers were able to purchase a TV for half price when this was not the case.
-
Haven Power Ltd
A website post by an electricity supplier did not make misleading environmental claims.
-
Telefonica UK Ltd t/a O2
A TV and newspaper ad for O2 which claimed it was the “UK’s No.1 Network” was found to be misleading because the comparisons it made with competitors were not clear.
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 (23)