-
Frasers Group Trading Ltd t/a Sports Direct
A product page on the Sports Direct website made misleading claims about reference price and associated savings.
-
Kind Patches Ltd
A paid-for Instagram ad for a supplement company, misleadingly implied their products had health benefits without supporting evidence and irresponsibly trivialised and condoned an act of anti-social behaviour.
-
PLK Chicken UK Ltd t/a Popeyes
An Instagram ad by @onlyscrans and a paid-for Instagram ad for Popeyes didn’t break the rules by featuring an identifiable less healthy food product.
-
Ferrero UK Ltd t/a Thorntons
A paid-for Instagram ad for Thorntons didn’t break the rules by featuring an identifiable less healthy food product.
-
YO! Sushi UK Ltd t/a YO!
A paid-for Instagram post for YO! Sushi broke the rules by featuring an identifiable specific less healthy food product.
-
Costcutter Supermarkets Group Ltd t/a Costcutter and Mondelez Europe Services GmbH – UK branch t/a Cadbury (Mondelez)
A webpage for Costcutter and Cadburys broke the rules by featuring an identifiable less healthy food product. Another ad was investigated but it didn’t break our rules.
-
Innate-Essence Ltd t/a the Turmeric Co.
A website for a turmeric shot company made claims that a food could prevent, treat or cure human disease.
-
BoyleSports (Gibraltar) Ltd t/a BoyleSports
A paid-for online display ad for a gambling company encouraged gambling behaviour that was socially irresponsible and could lead to financial harm by encouraging frequent and repetitive participation.
-
Bubbleology UK-I Ltd t/a Bubbleology
A paid-for Instagram ad for a bubble tea company didn’t break the less healthy food rules because it was a small and medium-sized enterprise and was therefore exempt.
-
Dignity Funerals Ltd t/a Simplicity Cremations
Two TV ads for a funeral provider didn’t make clear that the funeral plans advertised were for non-attended cremations only.
-
Domino's Pizza UK & Ireland Ltd t/a Domino's
A TV ad, Video on Demand ad and a YouTube ad for Domino’s broke the rules by featuring an identifiable less healthy food product.
-
Higham Miller Coffee Ltd t/a Exhale Healthy Coffee
A paid-for Instagram ad for a coffee company made unauthorised health and nutrition claims and included health claims that referred to the recommendation of an individual health professional.
-
McDonald's Restaurants Ltd t/a McDonald's
A TV ad for McDonalds didn’t break the rules by featuring an identifiable less healthy product.
-
Eurowings GmbH t/a Eurowings
A paid-for Google ad for an airline gave a misleading impression of their flights environmental impact and implied that people could pay to fully offset the carbon emissions from a specific flight without suitable evidence to support these claims.
-
Origin Sleep UK Ltd t/a Origin Mattress
A website for a mattress company made misleading savings claims and misleadingly implied that discount offers were time-limited and that people needed to act more quickly than necessary to take advantage of an offer.
-
Qatar Airways Group QCSC t/a Qatar Airways
Two paid-for LinkedIn posts for an airline gave a misleading impression of their flights environmental impact and implied that people could pay to fully offset the carbon emissions of a specific flight without suitable evidence to support this claim.
-
Domino's Pizza UK & Ireland Ltd t/a Domino's
Two paid-for social media ads for Domino’s pizza didn’t break the rules by featuring an identifiable less healthy product.
-
Kentucky Fried Chicken (Great Britain) Ltd t/a KFC
A TV ad, Video on Demand and three paid-for social media ads for KFC didn’t break the rules by featuring an identifiable less healthy product.
-
Mars Wrigley Confectionery UK Ltd t/a Mars
A paid-for Instagram ad for M&M’s broke the rules by featuring an identifiable less healthy food product through the inclusion of a character that depicted a specific less healthy food product.
-
Papa John's (GB) Ltd t/a Papa Johns
A paid for Facebook ad for Papa John’s didn’t break the rules by featuring an identifiable less healthy product.
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 (90)