-
Babyboo Fashion Pty Ltd t/a Babyboo Fashion
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
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
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
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
A website post by a jewellery retailer was banned for making misleading savings claims about a pair of earrings.
-
Dalradian Gold Ltd
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
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
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.
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 (13)