-
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.
-
Starlink Internet Services Ltd
A banner ad for an internet provider omitted material information about a promotional price offer.
-
Domestika Inc
A paid-for Facebook post for an online course provider misleadingly gave the impression that an offer was a one-off purchase when it was only available when signing up to a free trial of a subscription.
-
Storage Giant Ltd
Two web pages and an email for a self-storage company made best price guaranteed claims without evidence to support them. They also failed to make sure that quoted prices reflected the total cost people would pay and didn’t make clear when prices were promotional or subject to significant...
-
Select Specs Ltd
A TV and YouTube ad for a glasses retailer made misleading and unverifiable price comparisons with competitor products. The ads also made misleading pricing claims, including by failing to make minimum order requirements and non-optional delivery charges sufficiently clear.
-
Zzoomm plc
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
An email and paid-for Google search ad for AliExpress made misleading price statements.
-
Amazon Europe Core Sarl t/a Amazon.co.uk
A webpage on Amazon.co.uk showed unclear options to purchase Amazon Prime and was misleading for consumers.
-
Octopus Energy Ltd
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
A website for Origin Mattress made misleading claims about reference prices and associated savings.
-
CityFibre Holdings Ltd
A direct mailing wasn't misleading.
-
Vodafone Ltd
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
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
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
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.
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 (21)