-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
DeVosVoorzieningen BVBA t/a Qinux TitanPG
A pre-roll YouTube ad made unsubstantiated claims about the features and popularity of a smart watch.
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 (6)