-
Esaverwatt.com t/a StopWatt
A product listing on Amazon for a smart home energy monitoring brand misleadingly exaggerated the effectiveness of the product by making claims that it could save electricity, reduce electricity waste and lower energy bills.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
The Trade Desk, Inc
A promoted LinkedIn post from a media buying platform broke the rules by featuring an identifiable less healthy food.
-
Whitworths Ltd
An Instagram post on the WhitworthsUK page made unauthorised health claims and implied that a food could prevent or treat human disease.
-
McCain Foods (GB) Ltd t/a McCain Foodservice Solutions
A paid-for Facebook ad for McCain Foods and Five Akhi’s restaurants broke the rules by featuring an identifiable less healthy food product.
-
Kind Patches Ltd
A paid-for Instagram ad for a supplement company, misleadingly implied their products had health benefits without supporting evidence and irresponsibly trivialised and condoned an act of anti-social behaviour.
-
PLK Chicken UK Ltd t/a Popeyes
An Instagram ad by @onlyscrans and a paid-for Instagram ad for Popeyes didn’t break the rules by featuring an identifiable less healthy food product.
-
Stacey’s World Rocks
A Telegram post on the Stacey’s World Rocks account was socially irresponsible by encouraging people not to pay household bills.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
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 (68)