-
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.
-
S&E1 Ltd t/a Morley's Woking
A paid-for Instagram ad for Morley’s broke the rules by featuring an identifiable less healthy food product.
-
Uber Eats UK Ltd t/a Uber Eats
A Video on Demand pause ad for Uber Eats didn’t break the rules by featuring an identifiable less healthy product.
-
Adidas UK Ltd t/a adidas
A paid-for Google ad for adidas made misleading environmental claims.
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 (89)