-
Adidas UK Ltd t/a adidas
A paid-for Google ad for adidas made misleading environmental claims.
-
Big Fang Collective Ltd t/a Golf Fang
A leaflet for an indoor golf venue didn’t make clear it was an ad and caused unjustified distress by resembling a parking ticket.
-
Calvin Klein Europe BV t/a Calvin Klein
A paid-for Google ad for Calvin Klein made misleading environmental claims.
-
Patisserie Valerie Production Ltd t/a Patisserie Valerie
Three paid-for Google search ads for Patisserie Valerie didn’t break the less healthy food rules as they were a small or medium sized enterprise and therefore were exempt from the restrictions.
-
The Clean Supps LLC t/a Inno Supps
Four paid-for Meta ads promoting supplements made claims that a food supplement could prevent, treat or cure human diseases or conditions, made unauthorised health claims and made claims that referred to a rate or amount of weight loss for food supplements. The ad also used ...
-
Uniqlo (UK) Ltd t/a UNIQLO
A paid- for Google ad for UNIQLO made misleading environmental claims.
-
MN2S Management Ltd t/a MN2S
A website for a talent agency misleadingly stated that Seph Lawless was represented by the agency and was available to be booked through them.
-
Pure Cremation Funeral Planning Ltd t/a Pure Cremation
A TV ad for Pure Cremation misleadingly implied that their standard funeral plan included an attended funeral service and failed to make clear where a plan was limited to a non-attended cremation.
-
StudySmarter GmbH
Three job listings on a student resource website misleadingly implied they were genuine job vacancies and falsely implied that the advertiser was acting for purposes outside its business.
-
Amazon Europe Core Sarl t/a Amazon.co.uk
A paid-for Instagram ad for Amazon Fresh UK broke the rules by featuring an identifiable less healthy food product.
-
Guangzhoushi Yingyi Maoyi Youxiangongsi t/a LANPN
An Instagram post on Gemma Markland’s account wasn’t obviously identifiable as an ad.
-
SnackVerse Ltd
A webpage for a snack subscription box misleadingly implied their subscribers would receive a specific country-themed box but didn’t make clear this was subject to allocation conditions.
-
Course Accreditation Ltd
A website and a paid-for Google search ad for an accreditation company didn’t provide suitable evidence to back up objective claims, including comparative claims. The ads also misleadingly implied their accreditation was recognised by insurers and that t...
-
GLP-1 Pro Ltd t/a GuLP-1
Two webpages for a food supplement company made claims that a supplement could prevent, treat or cure human disease and made unauthorised health and medicinal claims. The ads also compared the effects of a food supplement to those associated with weight-loss prescr...
-
Medilife Clinic Enfield
A paid-for Instagram ad for a health clinic made claims that their treatments could alleviate or treat the traits of autism without suitable evidence to support these claims. The ad also discouraged essential treatment for conditions for which medical supervision should be sought.
-
The Professional Development Consortium Ltd t/a CPD Standards Office
Two paid-for Meta ads for a training accreditation company made misleading comparative claims with identifiable competitors which weren’t supported by evidence and couldn’t be verified by consumers.
-
Bakkavor Ltd
A promotion featured on the packaging of a cookie dough dessert misleadingly implied that particular products were included in the promotion, causing unnecessary disappointment.
-
Birling Shore Ltd t/a ShroomIQ
A website and paid-for Facebook ad for a children’s supplement brand stated that a food supplement could prevent, treat or cure the symptoms of ADHD, Tourette Syndrome, anxiety and depression. The ads also made medicinal claims for unauthorised products, made unauthorised health claims&nb...
-
Dollead Technology Ltd
A paid-for search ad for a vacuum review website failed to make their commercial intent clear and falsely implied they were acting for purposes outside their trade by presenting websites used for marketing purposes as independent review sites.
-
Easy as HGV Ltd
Three websites for Heavy Goods Vehicle (HGV) training service providers made misleading claims about HGV test pass rates and falsely implied they were acting for purposes outside their business.
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 (82)