-
Heineken UK Ltd
An Instagram post by the comedian Al Nash advertising Strongbow, implied that alcohol was indispensable and took priority in life.
-
Mast-Jagermeister UK t/a Jägermeister
Two paid-for Facebook and Instagram ads for Jägermeister were socially irresponsible and implied that alcohol was a key component of the success of a social event.
-
Locksley Distilling Co Ltd
A paid-for Facebook and Instagram ad for a bottle of gin implied that a drink may be preferred because of its higher alcohol content.
-
Amazing Giveaways Ltd
A Facebook post for a prize draw wasn't administered fairly and caused unnecessary disappointment.
-
BrewDog plc
A poster broke the strict alcohol advertising rules because it implied that alcohol could overcome boredom, loneliness or other problems.
-
Detox Today
A website homepage for an alcohol addiction help and support service misleadingly implied that the advertiser directly provided registered medical treatment.
-
Wowcher Ltd
A website failed to administer a promotion fairly and caused unnecessary disappointment.
-
Phusion Projects LLC t/a FourLoko
An Instagram ad was socially irresponsible and encouraged people to adopt an unwise drinking style.
-
Global Brands Ltd t/a VK
A paid-for Instagram story posted by @vkdrink was socially irresponsible by implying that drinking alcohol could overcome boredom.
-
Groupe SEB UK Ltd t/a Tefal
A website product page for a set of pans misleadingly implied that a discount offer could be used for particular products when that was not the case.
-
The Innovative Brewing Company Ltd t/a Prime Time Lager
A poster ad for Prime Time Lager made health and nutrition claims not permitted for alcoholic drinks.
-
Bestway Retail Ltd t/a Bargain Booze
A paid-for Instagram and Facebook ad for alcohol which featured Father Christmas was of particular appeal to under-18s.
-
Shop TJC Ltd t/a Ideal World
A teleshopping presentation made unsubstantiated price and savings claims.
-
Meggan Kirkland
A promotion on Meggan Kirkland’s Instagram account wasn’t administered fairly.
-
Banquist Ltd t/a Winedrops
A paid-for Facebook ad and sponsored Instagram story made unsubstantiated price comparison claims and misleadingly implied that reviews and ratings were from a third-party review website when this wasn't the case.
-
Beer52 Ltd
Two email promotions omitted significant conditions.
-
Heineken UK Ltd t/a Heineken
A paid-for online display ad for Heineken 0.0 didn’t include a prominent statement of ABV.
-
Origin Sleep UK Ltd t/a Origin Mattress
A website implied that a promotion was time limited when this wasn’t the case, made misleading and unsubstantiated savings claims and made unsubstantiated claims about the health properties of their products.
-
Churchill Retirement Living Ltd
A national newspaper ad failed to include the significant conditions of a promotion, including a closing date.
-
Samsung Electronics (UK) Ltd
A website promotion misleadingly described a promotional item as “free”, did not make clear promotional items would have to be purchased upfront before being redeemed via a cashback mechanism and omitted significant conditions.
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 (22)