-
Fortore Ltd
A paid-for Facebook ad for an investment competition website failed to make clear that gold and precious metal investment was unregulated and that the value of investments was variable.
-
Montford Group Ltd t/a Brittania Bullion
A paid-for LinkedIn ad for a gold investment company failed to make clear that physical gold investment was unregulated and that the value of investments was variable.
-
Rosland Capital Ltd
A paid-for Facebook ad for a gold and precious metal specialist failed to make clear that gold and precious metal investment was unregulated and that the value of investments was variable.
-
Sourced Consultancy Ltd t/a Oak & Mason
A paid-for Meta ad for a gold investment company failed to make clear that physical gold investment was unregulated and that the value of investments was variable. The ad also broke the rules by referencing an example of past performance that was unrepresentative.
-
Tarvos Ltd t/a 7879
A paid-for Meta ad for an online retailer of gold and platinum jewellery failed to make clear that physical gold and precious metal investment was unregulated and that the value of investments was variable.
-
Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board t/a AHDB
Two national press ads made claims about the carbon footprints of beef and milk that weren’t supported with full life cycle evidence. Two other issues were investigated in relation to TV ads, an Instagram post, and a website page but they didn’t break the rules.
-
Linjer Ltd
Two paid-for Google ads for a jewellery retailer didn’t make clear that their diamonds were synthetic.
-
Novita Diamonds Ltd t/a Novita Diamonds
Two paid-for Meta ads for a jewellery retailer didn’t make clear that their diamonds were synthetic.
-
Shop TJC Ltd t/a Ideal World
Two teleshopping presentations advertising watches made misleading claims about price, savings and availability.
-
Persons unknown t/a Charmfay Shop
A paid-for YouTube ad for a clothing company made misleading claims regarding a product including images and the materials used to make them.
-
Alliance Winds Ltd t/a linendaily
A paid-for Meta ad and a website listing for an online clothing company misleadingly claimed they were established and owned by armed forces veterans and that they donated a share of profits to PTSD support organisations.
-
Adamans Group Ltd
A website page for a jeweller misleadingly gave the impression that products were included in a promotional offer and failed to make clear which products were included in the offer.
-
Assured Food Standards t/a Red Tractor
A TV ad for Assured Food Standard’s Red Tractor Scheme failed to make clear exactly which standards it was referring to, or the degree to which those standards were being met when using the claim “farmed with care” in conjunction with “all our standards are met.”
-
Marble Muse
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
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.
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)