-
Antipadia Enterprises Ltd t/a Copymind: AI Twin for Therapy
Two paid-for Facebook ads for an AI therapy app made medical claims for an app that wasn’t registered with the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency and didn’t hold the applicable compliance labels. The ads also discouraged essential treatment for conditions for which medical supervision shoul...
-
GMB Agency LLC t/a Pulmoria
A paid-for Facebook post for an online supplement brand made claims that a food supplement could prevent, treat or cure human disease and made unauthorised specific health claims.
-
Juniper Technologies UK Ltd t/a Juniper
A pre-roll ad on YouTube for an online pharmacy promoted prescription-only medicines to the public against the law and our rules.
-
MedExpress Enterprises Ltd t/a MedExpress
An Instagram Story for an online pharmacy promoted prescription-only medicines to the public against the law and our rules.
-
Menwell Ltd t/a Voy
A video-on-demand (VOD) ad for an online pharmacy promoted prescription-only medicines to the public against the law and our rules.
-
Menwell Ltd t/a Voy
A poster for an online pharmacy promoted prescription-only medicines to the public against the law and our rules.
-
Walkers Snacks Ltd t/a Walkers
A TikTok post for Walkers crisps posted by influencer Isabella Hill didn’t break the rules by featuring an identifiable less-healthy product.
-
Unicorn Brands Ltd t/a Nutrition Geeks
A paid-for Facebook ad for a supplement brand made unauthorised health and nutrition claims.
-
Menwell Ltd t/a Do Health
Two ads for a health app incorporating a blood testing programme misleadingly implied that their blood tests could prevent and diagnose medical conditions or that their service could provide more tailored specific advice than pre-existing advice, without the evidence to support these claims.
-
Huel Ltd
An Instagram video and pre-roll ad on YouTube for Huel was irresponsible by encouraging the exclusive consumption of Huel in place of conventional food. The ads also made unathorised specific health claims.
-
Luma Pet
A paid-for Facebook ad for Luma Pet misleadingly claimed that a red light therapy pad could reduce inflammation around the spinal discs, treat existing spinal damages or back pain and prevent IVDD related flare ups without having the evidence to support these claims.
-
ESTHETURK Danismanlik A.S. t/a You Clinic
A paid-for Meta ad and a paid-for Google ad for a medical clinic made misleading claims that stem cell treatment could treat or alleviate the traits associated with autism or stop the progression of autism.
-
Harnbury Holdings Ltd t/a San Carlo
An Instagram post by Pamela Olender for the restaurant San Carlo Cicchetti wasn’t obviously identifiable as an ad and broke the rules by featuring an identifiable less healthy food product.
-
Here We Flo Ltd t/a Flo
Three Instagram posts for a period product company made misleading environmental claims, including by failing to make the basis of environmental claims clear.
-
International Medical Center LLC t/a Swiss Medica
A paid-for Meta ad for a medical clinic made misleading claims that stem cell treatment could treat or alleviate the traits associated with autism.
-
Linden Clinics t/a Linden Stem Cell
A paid-for Facebook ad for a stem cell therapy clinic made misleading claims that stem cell therapy was effective in improving the traits associated with autism in children.
-
Morley's (Fast Foods) Ltd
An Instagram post by Ellie Scotney for Morley’s UK broke the rules by featuring an identifiable less healthy food product.
-
Reliable Medicare Ltd
Three product listings on the website of a medical aesthetics and skincare supplier made misleading savings claims.
-
Rumi Pulse t/a Rumi Pulse Medical Tourism Agency
A paid-for Meta ad for a medical clinic made misleading claims that stem cell treatment could treat or alleviate the traits associated with autism.
-
The Trade Desk, Inc
A promoted LinkedIn post from a media buying platform broke the rules by featuring an identifiable less healthy food.
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 (91)