Rulings (13)
  • Babyboo Fashion Pty Ltd t/a Babyboo Fashion

    • Upheld
    • Social media (paid ad)
    • 14 April 2021

    A paid-for Instagram post by an online clothing retailer was banned for being likely to cause serious or widespread offence by objectifying women.

  • Prettylittlething.com Ltd

    • Upheld
    • Internet (social networking)
    • 07 April 2021

    A TikTok post by influencers promoting a fashion brand broke the CAP Code as it was not obviously identifiable as an ad.

  • UAB Commerce Core t/a FitsWatch

    • Upheld
    • Internet (video)
    • 07 April 2021

    A paid-for YouTube ad for a smart watch was banned for showing an Apple Watch to promote a different product. We referred the matter to CAP’s Compliance team.

  • Genus UK Ltd t/a Select Fashion

    • Upheld
    • Social media (influencer or affiliate ad)
    • 31 March 2021

    Two Instagram posts by two influencers promoting a fashion company broke the CAP code as they were not obviously identifiable as ads.

  • Watches of Switzerland Company Ltd t/a Goldsmiths

    • Upheld
    • Website (own site)
    • 17 March 2021

    A website post by a jewellery retailer was banned for making misleading savings claims about a pair of earrings.

  • Dalradian Gold Ltd

    • Upheld
    • 10 March 2021

    A newspaper ad for a gold mining construction project was banned for misleadingly implying that materials extracted from the proposed mine would be used in the renewable energy industry.

  • Boohoo.com UK Ltd in association with Luke Mabbott

    • Upheld
    • Social media (influencer or affiliate ad)
    • 10 February 2021

    A TikTok post by an influencer promoting the fashion retailer Boohoo breached the CAP Code as it was not obviously identifiable as an ad.

  • In The Style Fashion Ltd t/a In the Style

    • Upheld
    • Internet
    • 06 January 2021

    A website and Instagram post by an online fashion retailer were banned for implying that all their products were included in an offer when this was not actually the case.

  • Under Armour UK Ltd

    • Upheld
    • Internet (on own site)
    • 19 August 2020

    A website ad for Under Armour misleadingly stated that a T-shirt could improve the wearer’s strength and endurance.

  • Lemongrassrice Ltd

    • Upheld
    • Social media (paid ad)
    • 24 June 2020

    A paid-for Facebook post by an online retailer made misleading claims that its product, a bra, could reduce the risk of breast cancer.

  • Boohoo.com UK Ltd

    • Upheld
    • Email, Internet (social networking)
    • 06 May 2020

    Discount claims in an email and website misleadingly implied all products would be discounted and a countdown clock on the website misleadingly implied the offers were time-limited.

  • Sorelle UK Brand Ltd

    • Upheld
    • Internet (on own site), Website (own site)
    • 29 April 2020

    Product listings on a website for faux fur jackets were misleading because the advertiser was unable to demonstrate that their products did not contain real animal fur.

  • Asos.com Ltd

    • Upheld
    • Internet (social networking)
    • 22 April 2020

    An Instagram story that contained an affiliate link was not obviously identifiable as an ad.