-
Person(s) Unknown t/a Henry’s Boots
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
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
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 Luxelle-London
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.
-
Person(s) unknown t/a Muse
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
A TV ad made unsubstantiated claims about the efficacy of a shapewear product.
-
Next Retail Ltd t/a NEXT
A product listing on the NEXT website irresponsibly portrayed a model as being unhealthily thin.
-
Endrick Clothing Ltd
Two Instagram posts were not clearly identifiable as marketing communication and portrayed smoking in an appealing manner which is against the ad rules.
-
Ashlen Inc
A paid-for Facebook ad misleadingly stated that a hair pin collection was being withdrawn and failed to include an end date for a promotion.
-
Kentesh Ltd
A paid-for Facebook ad misleadingly stated that a clothing collection was being withdrawn and failed to include an end date for a promotion.
-
Person(s) unknown t/a Goodysee
A paid-for Facebook ad misleadingly stated that a clothing collection was being withdrawn and failed to include an end date for a promotion.
-
Adidas UK Ltd
An Instagram story on Tanya Burr’s account featuring affiliate links wasn’t obviously identifiable as an ad.
-
Nike Retail BV
A paid-for X ad for The Sole Supplier, featuring Nike trainers, was misleading as most people would reasonably assume that the trainers were for adults when, in fact, they were intended for older children. The omission of this material information prompted people to click through and find out more.
-
Reiss Ltd
An Instagram reel on Lydia Millen’s account posted together with Instagram stories featuring affiliate links to the products shown in the reel weren’t obviously identifiable as ads.
-
Sterling Wholesale Ltd t/a Moncrief
A website made misleading claims that all of its products were handmade in Italy, and that they had frequently been featured in top international fashion magazines.
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 (15)