-
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.
-
Gemporia Ltd
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
A pre-roll YouTube ad made unsubstantiated claims about the features and popularity of a smart watch.
-
Webloyalty International Ltd t/a Webloyalty, Complete Savings
Two in-app ads and a pop-up banner ad for a shopper reward programme weren't clearly identifiable as ads and didn't make the presentation of choices clear.
-
Webloyalty International Ltd t/a Webloyalty, Complete Savings
Three webpages on a website for a shopper reward programme failed to make clear the steps that people had to take to obtain a 'welcome reward'.
-
British Telecommunications plc t/a BT
A webpage on the BT website didn’t make clear that their broadband contracts would be subject to mid-contract price increases.
-
EE Ltd t/a EE
A webpage on the EE website didn’t make clear that their broadband contracts would be subject to mid-contract price increases.
-
Plusnet plc
A webpage on the Plusnet plc website didn’t make clear that their broadband contracts would be subject to mid-contract price increases.
-
TalkTalk Telecom Ltd t/a TalkTalk
A webpage on the TalkTalk website didn’t make clear that their broadband contracts would be subject to mid-contract price increases.
-
Telefonica UK Ltd t/a O2
A webpage on the O2 website didn’t make clear that their broadband contracts would be subject to mid-contract price increase.
-
Virgin Media Ltd
A webpage on the Virgin Media website didn’t make clear that their broadband contracts would be subject to mid-contract price increases.
-
Sky UK Ltd t/a NOW
A website for Now TV was misleading as it didn’t make it sufficiently clear that free trials, which were automatically added to the basket, would auto-renew at a fee unless cancelled.
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)