Rulings (85)
  • Domino's Pizza UK & Ireland Ltd t/a Domino's

    • Not Upheld
    • Social media (paid ad)
    • 08 July 2026

    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

    • Not upheld
    • Social media (paid ad), Television, Video on demand
    • 08 July 2026

    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

    • Upheld
    • Social media (paid ad)
    • 08 July 2026

    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

    • Not upheld
    • Social media (paid ad)
    • 08 July 2026

    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

    • Upheld
    • Social media (paid ad)
    • 08 July 2026

    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

    • Not upheld
    • Social media (paid ad)
    • 08 July 2026

    A Video on Demand pause ad for Uber Eats didn’t break the rules by featuring an identifiable less healthy product.

  • Patisserie Valerie Production Ltd t/a Patisserie Valerie

    • Not upheld
    • Search (paid)
    • 24 June 2026

    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

    • Upheld
    • Social media (paid ad)
    • 24 June 2026

    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 ...

  • BetterYou Ltd t/a Better You

    • Upheld
    • Magazine (paid ad)
    • 17 June 2026

    A magazine ad for a supplement company made misleading claims that their product delivered vitamin D “quickly” and enabled fast absorption of vitamin D into the body. 

  • Amazon Europe Core Sarl t/a Amazon.co.uk

    • Upheld
    • Social media (paid ad)
    • 10 June 2026

    A paid-for Instagram ad for Amazon Fresh UK broke the rules by featuring an identifiable less healthy food product.

  • Menwell Ltd t/a Voy

    • Upheld
    • Email
    • 27 May 2026

    Three emails for an online pharmacy promoted prescription-only medicines to the public against the law and our rules. The ads were also socially irresponsible by creating an undue sense of urgency for people who were considering medicated weight-loss programmes. 

  • SnackVerse Ltd

    • Upheld
    • Website (own site)
    • 20 May 2026

    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. 

  • GLP-1 Pro Ltd t/a GuLP-1

    • Upheld
    • 06 May 2026

    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

    • Upheld
    • Social media (paid ad)
    • 06 May 2026

    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. 

  • Bakkavor Ltd

    • Upheld
    • Packaging (promotion)
    • 29 April 2026

    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

    • Upheld
    • Social media (paid ad), Website (own site)
    • 22 April 2026

    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...

  • Pets Corner UK Ltd t/a Pet Food Expert

    • Upheld
    • Website (own site)
    • 22 April 2026

    A homepage for a website providing information about pet food falsely implied they were acting for purposes outside their trade by misleadingly presenting the website as independent.

  • GDK International Ltd t/a German Doner Kebab

    • Not upheld
    • Social media (influencer or affiliate ad)
    • 15 April 2026

    An Instagram ad for German Doner Kebab, posted by influencer John Fisher, didn’t break the rules by featuring an identifiable less healthy product.

  • Iceland Foods Ltd t/a Iceland and The Food Warehouse

    • Upheld
    • Website (paid ad), Internet (display)
    • 15 April 2026

    A banner ad and a display ad for Iceland Foods broke the rules by featuring identifiable less healthy food products.

  • Lidl Northern Ireland Ltd

    • Upheld
    • Social media (influencer or affiliate ad)
    • 15 April 2026

    An Instagram post for Lidl by influencer Emma Kearney broke the rules by featuring an identifiable less healthy food product.