-
In The Style Fashion Ltd t/a In the Style
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
A website ad for Under Armour misleadingly stated that a T-shirt could improve the wearer’s strength and endurance.
-
Lemongrassrice Ltd
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
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
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
An Instagram story that contained an affiliate link was not obviously identifiable as an ad.
-
Missguided Ltd
A poster by a fashion brand objectified women and was likely to cause offence while another was unlikely to break the rules on the same grounds.
-
Prettylittlething.com Ltd t/a Prettylittlething.com
An ad on YouTube for a clothing retailer was banned for objectifying women.
Rulings
Our rulings are published every Wednesday and set out on the public record how, following 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, following receipt of a complaint, agreed to amend or withdraw their ad without the need for a formal investigation.
Rulings (8)