Rulings (32)
  • Kind Patches Ltd

    • Upheld
    • Social media (paid ad)
    • 15 July 2026

    A paid-for Facebook ad for a supplement company made claims that a supplement patch could help with weight-loss and made medicinal claims for products that weren’t authorised by the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA). The ad was also socially irresponsible and incl...

  • Phlo Technologies Ltd

    • Upheld
    • Social media (paid ad)
    • 15 July 2026

    A paid-for Facebook ad promoted weight-loss prescription-only medicines to the public, against the law and our rules. 

  • Express Healthcare Ltd t/a pharmacyonline.co.uk

    • Upheld
    • Social media (paid ad)
    • 24 June 2026

    A paid-for Meta ad and website for an online pharmacy promoted prescription-only medicines to the public, against the law and our rules. 

  • Fortore Ltd

    • Upheld
    • Social media (paid ad)
    • 10 June 2026

    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

    • Upheld
    • Social media (paid ad)
    • 10 June 2026

    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

    • Upheld
    • Social media (paid ad)
    • 10 June 2026

    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

    • Upheld
    • Social media (paid ad)
    • 10 June 2026

    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

    • Upheld
    • Social media (paid ad)
    • 10 June 2026

    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.

  • Menwell Ltd t/a Voy

    • Upheld
    • Email
    • 27 May 2026

    Three emails for an online pharmacy promoted prescription-only medicines to the public against the law and our rules. The ads were also socially irresponsible by creating an undue sense of urgency for people who were considering medicated weight-loss programmes. 

  • Linjer Ltd

    • Upheld
    • Search (paid)
    • 13 May 2026

    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

    • Upheld
    • Social media (paid ad)
    • 13 May 2026

    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

    • Upheld
    • Television
    • 22 April 2026

    Two teleshopping presentations advertising watches made misleading claims about price, savings and availability.

  • Persons unknown t/a Charmfay Shop

    • Upheld
    • Social media (paid ad)
    • 25 March 2026

    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

    • Upheld
    • Social media (paid ad)
    • 25 February 2026

    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.

  • Health Bridge Ltd t/a Zava

    • Upheld
    • Website (ad feature)
    • 18 February 2026

    An advertorial promoting medicated weight-loss seen on the Mumsnet website didn’t make it clear it was an ad, used healthcare professionals to endorse a medicine and promoted prescription-only medicines to the public, against the law and our rules.

  • Health Bridge Ltd t/a Zava

    • Upheld
    • Social media (influencer or affiliate ad)
    • 11 February 2026

    An Instagram post, TikTok video and a Facebook post for weight-loss injections promoted prescription-only medicines to the public, against the law and our rules.

  • MedExpress Enterprises Ltd t/a MedExpress

    • Upheld
    • Social media (influencer or affiliate ad)
    • 11 February 2026

    Three Instagram posts and a TikTok video for weight-loss injections promoted prescription-only medicines to the public, against the law and our rules.

  • Menwell Ltd t/a Voy

    • Upheld
    • Social media (influencer or affiliate ad)
    • 11 February 2026

    Four Instagram ads for weight-loss injections promoted prescription-only medicines to the public, against the law and our rules.

  • UK Meds Direct Ltd

    • Upheld
    • Social media (influencer or affiliate ad)
    • 11 February 2026

    Two TikTok ads for weight-loss injections promoted prescription-only medicines to the public, against the law and our rules.

  • Adamans Group Ltd

    • Upheld
    • Website (own site)
    • 07 January 2026

    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.