Rulings (17)
  • Adidas UK Ltd t/a Adidas

    • Upheld
    • Poster, Social media (own site)
    • 11 May 2022

    We upheld complaints against ads containing nudity.

  • Prettylittlething.com Ltd t/a Prettylittlething.com

    • Upheld
    • Internet (website content)
    • 22 June 2022

    We upheld complaints about an online product listing for a pair of jeans, as it objectified women.

  • PPB Counterparty Services Ltd t/a Paddy Power

    • Not upheld
    • Radio
    • 15 June 2022

    A radio ad for a bookmaker did not break the rules on harm and offence on the grounds of innuendo or portrayal of gender stereotypes

  • Ayoomi Technology Co Ltd

    • Upheld
    • App (paid ad)
    • 01 June 2022

    An in-game ad was socially irresponsible and likely to cause serious or widespread offence for objectifying women or presenting them as stereotyped sexual objects and featuring implied non-consensual sexual acts. 

  • Stephen Bear t/a Pink Panther Models

    • Upheld
    • Internet (website content)
    • 25 May 2022

    A website for an adult webcam modelling recruitment agency made misleading earnings claims and inaccurate statement about the organisation’s experience in the sector.

  • Alibaba Group Holding Limited t/a Alibaba

    • Upheld
    • Website (paid ad)
    • 18 May 2022

    A website ad for an online retailer was irresponsible for portraying a female model who was under the age of 18 in a sexual way.

  • Get Hard Ltd

    • Upheld
    • Poster
    • 18 May 2022

    An outdoor poster for an online sex store was overtly sexual and because it was displayed in an untargeted medium was likely to cause serious and widespread offence and was irresponsible.

  • LeMieux Ltd

    • Upheld
    • Internet (website content)
    • 27 April 2022

    A website ad for a food supplement for female horses, which included an offensive gender stereotype, was banned for being likely to cause serious offence.

  • Hoover Ltd

    • Not upheld
    • Television
    • 09 March 2022

    A TV ad for a washing machine did not perpetuate harmful gender stereotypes. 

  • Box Menswear Ltd

    • Upheld in part
    • Email
    • 16 February 2022

    Three email ads for Box Menswear were banned for being sexually explicit and likely to cause serious offence.

  • J MAC Excavators Ltd

    • Upheld
    • Social media (paid ad)
    • 22 December 2021

    A paid-for Facebook post for a retailer of construction machinery was banned for being likely to cause serious or widespread offence or harm by objectifying women.

  • The Food Hub

    • Upheld
    • Circular
    • 22 December 2021

    A circular advertising an online takeaway delivery service was banned for being likely to cause serious or widespread offence by objectifying women.

  • JD Recruitment Group Ltd

    • Upheld
    • Social media (own site)
    • 15 December 2021

    A post on recruiter JD Recruitment's Facebook page was banned for being likely to cause serious offence on the grounds of race and for objectifying women.  

  • Rangosious Public Holdings Ltd t/a Amrita Studios

    • Upheld
    • App (paid ad)
    • 15 December 2021

    An ad for a gaming app was banned for objectifying women and for being likely to cause serious or widespread offence. 

  • Diesel (London) Ltd

    • Upheld
    • Social media (paid ad)
    • 08 December 2021

    Two online display ads for the clothing retailer Diesel were banned for including overtly sexual imagery in an untargeted medium where they could be seen by children.

  • Person(s) unknown

    • Upheld
    • App (paid ad)
    • 08 December 2021

    Two in-app ads were banned for containing extremely graphic sexual imagery in a medium that would have general appeal, including to children. We considered the ads were likely to cause serious and widespread offence and had been inappropriately targeted.

  • International Footcare Ltd

    • Not upheld
    • Television
    • 01 September 2021

    We did not uphold complaints that an ad for a shoe was sexist.