Rulings (75)
  • Bubbleology UK-I Ltd t/a Bubbleology

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

     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. 

  • Domino's Pizza UK & Ireland Ltd t/a Domino's

    • Upheld
    • Social media (paid ad), Television, Video on demand
    • 22 July 2026

    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

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

    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

    • Not Upheld
    • Television
    • 22 July 2026

    A TV ad for McDonalds didn’t break the rules by featuring an identifiable less healthy product.   

  • 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.

  • Stove Industry Alliance Ltd t/a Stove Industry Association (SIA)

    • Upheld
    • Website (own site)
    • 08 July 2026

    [Republished ruling] A website for the Stove Industry Association made unsubstantiated claims that modern stoves emitted significantly lower emissions than open fireplaces or older stoves, and that they were a low-emission way to heat a home. It also failed to make the basis of comparative environmental claims clear.

  • 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 ...

  • 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.

  • Brighton & Hove City Council

    • Upheld
    • Poster (digital static image)
    • 03 June 2026

    A digital poster misleadingly implied there was a direct causal link between the use of wood burners and open fires and an increase in particle pollution, without having suitable evidence to back this claim up. 

  • 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...

  • 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...

  • Ecoflow Innovation UK

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

    A website for a sustainable energy company misleadingly claimed that their products could be installed without using a certified installer or electrician.