Rulings (12)
  • Zzoomm plc

    • Upheld
    • Circular
    • 22 October 2025

    A circular letter for a broadband provider wasn’t obviously identifiable as marketing material and misled consumers by presenting it in a way that implied they were important notices on broadband disruption.

  • Alibaba.com Singapore E-commerce Private Ltd t/a AliExpress

    • Upheld
    • Search (paid), Email
    • 17 September 2025

    An email and paid-for Google search ad for AliExpress made misleading price statements.

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

    • Upheld
    • Website (own site)
    • 06 August 2025

    A webpage on Amazon.co.uk showed unclear options to purchase Amazon Prime and was misleading for consumers.

  • Octopus Energy Ltd

    • Upheld
    • Social media (paid ad)
    • 30 July 2025

    A paid-for Facebook ad for heat pump installation made unsubstantiated price claims and failed to include material information about a government grant, including eligibility criteria.

  • Origin Sleep UK Ltd t/a Origin Mattress

    • Upheld
    • Website (own site)
    • 30 July 2025

    A website for Origin Mattress made misleading claims about reference prices and associated savings.

  • CityFibre Holdings Ltd

    • Not upheld
    • Direct mail
    • 23 April 2025

    A direct mailing wasn't misleading.

  • Vodafone Ltd

    • Upheld in part
    • Website (own site)
    • 16 April 2025

    Claims on Vodafone’s website which contained references to reliability and coverage failed to objectively compare one or more material, relevant, verifiable and representative features.

  • Viagogo GmbH

    • Upheld
    • Audio (podcast)
    • 09 April 2025

    A podcast ad claimed that over half the events listed on Viagogo had tickets selling below face value when this wasn’t the case.

  • Hutchison 3G UK Ltd t/a Three Mobile

    • Not upheld
    • National newspaper (paid ad), Social media (paid ad), Internet (website content)
    • 02 April 2025

    A national press ad, two paid-for Meta ads and a website for Three Mobile didn’t make misleading ‘best value’ claims.

  • EE Ltd t/a EE

    • Upheld
    • Social media (paid ad), Television, Radio
    • 26 March 2025

    A TV, radio, paid-for social media and digital poster ad for EE made unsubstantiated claims about the performance and capabilities of a Wi-Fi router.

  • Gemporia Ltd

    • Upheld
    • Television
    • 05 March 2025

    A teleshopping presentation misleadingly compared the price of a product to the price of a non-identical competitor product and failed to substantiate price statements.

  • DeVosVoorzieningen BVBA t/a Qinux TitanPG

    • Upheld
    • Internet (video)
    • 13 November 2024

    A pre-roll YouTube ad made unsubstantiated claims about the features and popularity of a smart watch.