-
Nectar Sleep Ltd
The homepage for the Nectar Sleep website made misleading saving claims and didn’t make the basis of their savings claims clear. They also made comparisons against other brands’ prices without ensuring the claims were based on the actual price of the product.
-
EE Ltd t/a EE
A digital poster for EE didn’t make sure their comparative claims were verifiable. Another issue was also investigated but it didn’t break our rules.
-
Grain Connect Ltd
An email from a broadband company made misleading price rise claims about an identifiable competitor.
-
Motorpoint Ltd
A paid-for Instagram ad for a used car retailer made misleading savings claims.
-
Parc AI Ltd t/a Parc
A leaflet for a car parking app didn’t make clear it was an ad and caused unjustified distress by resembling a parking ticket.
-
DUSK (Retail) Ltd t/a DUSK
Four webpages for an online bed retailer made misleading savings claims.
-
Wowcher Ltd t/a Wowcher
A promotion on the Wowcher website wasn’t administered fairly and caused unnecessary disappointment.
-
Boots UK Ltd t/a boots.com
An online display ad for Boots made misleading savings claims. Another ad was investigated but it didn’t break the rules.
-
Practice Pal t/a Involve Education (Involve)
A website for a management information services software provider for schools made misleading and unverifiable comparative claims about competitors’ products.
-
On The Beach Ltd
An email for On The Beach made misleading price comparison claims and failed to make clear if people needed to act quickly to benefit from an advertised lower price. The ad also failed to make the basis of comparisons clear and didn’t provide prominent information to allow people to verify comparisons.
-
Criterion Hospitality Limited t/a Zedwell Hotels
A paid-for Meta ad for Zedwell Hotels didn’t make misleading claims about the price of hotel rooms.
-
Mamedica Ltd
A website for a medical cannabis clinic made misleading price comparison claims, failed to make the basis of comparisons with competitors clear and didn’t ensure that people would be able to verify comparative claims.
-
TUI UK Ltd
A holiday listing featured on the TUI website misleadingly advertised prices that weren’t available to the public.
-
easyJet Airline Co Ltd
A webpage for easyJet used “from” price claims which misleadingly implied that large cabin bags were available at the advertised price across a significant proportion of their flights.
-
Vodafone Ltd
Six ads for Vodafone were misleading by making an implied comparative claim without objectively comparing one or more specific verifiable features.
-
Abellio ScotRail Ltd t/a ScotRail
A website for ScotRail misleadingly claimed that they offered the cheapest ticket prices.
-
GA Trains Limited t/a Greater Anglia
A website page for Greater Anglia misleadingly claimed that they offered the cheapest ticket prices.
-
My Train Ticket Limited t/a mytrainticket.co.uk
A website page for MyTrainTicket misleadingly claimed that they offered the cheapest ticket prices.
-
OTTY Sleep Ltd
A website page for a mattress company made misleading savings claims.
-
DSV Communications Ltd t/a The One Broadband
A direct mailing misleadingly suggested that people at a specific address had been identified as having poor broadband connectivity and speeds. Another issue about a circular was informally resolved after the advertiser amended their ad.
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 (26)