Rulings (18)
  • Au Vodka Ltd

    • Upheld
    • Social media (paid ad), Social media (influencer or affiliate ad)
    • 24 September 2025

    A TikTok post by influencer Lucinda Strafford, a paid-for Facebook post featuring influencer Kai Cenat and another paid-for Facebook post advertising AU Vodka were inappropriately targeted, directed at under-18s and featured people who were, or appeared to be, under-25.

  • Voodoo Doll Ltd t/a MOJO Manchester

    • Upheld
    • Social media (paid ad)
    • 24 September 2025

    A paid-for Meta ad for a bar, which referenced alcoholic drinks, was irresponsible by being likely to have particular appeal to under-18s and by encouraging excessive drinking.

  • Heineken UK Ltd

    • Upheld
    • Social media (influencer or affiliate ad)
    • 10 September 2025

    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

    • Upheld
    • Social media (paid ad)
    • 10 September 2025

    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

    • Upheld
    • Social media (paid ad)
    • 27 August 2025

    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.

  • BrewDog plc

    • Upheld
    • Poster
    • 06 August 2025

    A poster broke the strict alcohol advertising rules because it implied that alcohol could overcome boredom, loneliness or other problems.

  • Hollywoodbets International UK Ltd t/a Hollywoodbets

    • Upheld
    • Website (paid ad)
    • 23 July 2025

    A banner ad for Hollywood bets seen on the Virtual Football League website was inappropriately targeted to under-18s.

  • Viva!

    • Upheld
    • Cinema (ad)
    • 16 July 2025

    A cinema ad for the vegan charity Viva!, featuring scenes of a human baby being taken from its mother and equating that with dairy calves being separated from their mothers, was irresponsible, distressing and likely to cause serious and widespread offence, particularly for viewers with experience of child los...

  • Detox Today

    • Upheld
    • Website (own site)
    • 09 July 2025

    A website homepage for an alcohol addiction help and support service misleadingly implied that the advertiser directly provided registered medical treatment.

  • Phusion Projects LLC t/a FourLoko

    • Upheld
    • Social media (own site)
    • 21 May 2025

    An Instagram ad was socially irresponsible and encouraged people to adopt an unwise drinking style. 

  • Global Brands Ltd t/a VK

    • Upheld
    • Social media (paid ad)
    • 16 April 2025

    A paid-for Instagram story posted by @vkdrink was socially irresponsible by implying that drinking alcohol could overcome boredom.

  • The Innovative Brewing Company Ltd t/a Prime Time Lager

    • Upheld
    • Poster
    • 16 April 2025

    A poster ad for Prime Time Lager made health and nutrition claims not permitted for alcoholic drinks.

  • Belle Baby Ltd

    • Upheld
    • Website (own site)
    • 09 April 2025

    A website, which featured a product listing for a swimsuit, included an image of a child portrayed in a sexual way.

  • Bestway Retail Ltd t/a Bargain Booze

    • Upheld
    • Social media (paid ad)
    • 19 March 2025

    A paid-for Instagram and Facebook ad for alcohol which featured Father Christmas was of particular appeal to under-18s.   

  • Shenzhenshi Senyi Dianzi Shangwu Youxiangongsi t/a Plum-Marketing

    • Upheld
    • Internet (classified)
    • 12 March 2025

    An Amazon product listing was socially irresponsible as it condoned an unsafe practice and featured very young children playing with a toy that was likely to cause them physical harm. 

  • Banquist Ltd t/a Winedrops

    • Upheld
    • Social media (paid ad)
    • 05 February 2025

    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

    • Upheld
    • Email
    • 18 December 2024

    Two email promotions omitted significant conditions.

  • Heineken UK Ltd t/a Heineken

    • Upheld in part
    • Internet (display)
    • 18 December 2024

    A paid-for online display ad for Heineken 0.0 didn’t include a prominent statement of ABV.