Rulings (13)
  • Marble Muse

    • Upheld
    • Website (own site)
    • 24 September 2025

    A website for a clothing company misleadingly implied that they were UK based and omitted the identity and geographical address of the company.

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

    • Upheld
    • Social media (paid ad)
    • 17 September 2025

    A paid-for Facebook ad for the AliExpress shopping app was misleading by showing a product as part of a promotion when it was not actually available at the price stated.

  • Marks and Spencer plc

    • Upheld in part
    • Email, App (own claim), Website (own site)
    • 23 July 2025

    A page within the Marks and Spencer app was socially irresponsible by portraying a model as unhealthily thin. A website, email and second app page were also investigated but did not break the rules.

  • Koi Footwear Ltd

    • Upheld
    • Email
    • 18 June 2025

    An email was socially irresponsible and likely to cause serious and widespread offence by condoning drug use.

  • Diesel SpA t/a Diesel

    • Upheld in part
    • Website (paid ad)
    • 11 June 2025

    A paid-for ad featuring Katie Price was irresponsible and likely to cause serious offence by objectifying and sexualising women.

  • Person(s) Unknown t/a Henry’s Boots

    • Upheld
    • Social media (paid ad)
    • 09 April 2025

    A paid-for Facebook ad and website made misleading claims including that their products were handmade and that they were closing down and also failed to include the geographical address from which they operated.

  • Person(s) unknown t/a Rosely London

    • Upheld
    • Social media (paid ad)
    • 09 April 2025

    A paid-for Facebook ad and website made misleading claims including about the materials used to make products and money-back guarantees and also failed to include the geographical address from which they operated.

  • Person(s) unknown t/a Velora London

    • Upheld
    • App (paid ad)
    • 09 April 2025

    A paid-for Facebook ad and website made misleading claims including about where the business was based, materials used to make products, delivery times and money-back guarantees and also failed to include the geographical address from which they operated.

  • Person(s) unknown t/a Muse

    • Upheld
    • Internet (website content)
    • 09 April 2025

    A website misleadingly implied they were a UK-based company and failed to include the geographical address from which they operated.

  • Person(s) unknown t/a Luxelle-London

    • Upheld
    • Social media (paid ad), Website (own site)
    • 09 April 2025

    Two paid-for Facebook ads and a website misleadingly implied they were a UK-based company and failed to include the geographical address from which they operated.

  • John Mills Ltd t/a JML Direct

    • Upheld
    • Television
    • 26 March 2025

    A TV ad made unsubstantiated claims about the efficacy of a shapewear product.

  • Next Retail Ltd t/a NEXT

    • Upheld
    • Website (own site)
    • 12 February 2025

    A product listing on the NEXT website irresponsibly portrayed a model as being unhealthily thin.

  • Endrick Clothing Ltd

    • Upheld
    • Social media (influencer or affiliate ad)
    • 08 January 2025

    Two Instagram posts were not clearly identifiable as marketing communication and portrayed smoking in an appealing manner which is against the ad rules.