Rulings (24)
  • Dribble Media Ltd t/a Midnite

    • Upheld
    • Social media (paid ad)
    • 16 September 2026

    A paid-for TikTok ad for Midnite featured someone who was or seemed to be under 25 gambling and playing a significant role in the ad.

  • White Hat Gaming Ltd t/a Casimba and The Grand Ivy Casino

    • Not upheld
    • Internet (display)
    • 16 September 2026

    Two web display ads for gambling sites and a website weren’t directed at under-18s. 

  • Smart Gravity Ltd t/a top10onlinecasinoreviews.co.uk

    • Upheld
    • Search (paid)
    • 09 September 2026

    A paid-for search ad for a gambling comparison website was not targeted responsibly.

  • The Boots Company PLC t/a Boots

    • Upheld
    • National newspaper (paid ad)
    • 19 August 2026

    A national press ad for Boots featured a promotion that wasn’t administered fairly and caused participants unnecessary disappointment.

  • Dribble Media Ltd t/a Midnite

    • Upheld
    • Television, VOD, Radio
    • 12 August 2026

    Two TV ads, Two Video on Demand ads and a radio ad for Midnite, a betting app, portrayed gambling behaviour that could lead to financial, social or emotional harm and also suggested that gambling was an escape from personal problems.

  • Videoslots Ltd t/a Mr Vegas

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

    A paid-for Facebook ad for a gambling company featured imagery that was likely to be of strong appeal to under-18s.

  • Argos Limited t/a Argos

    • Upheld in part
    • Magazine (commercial classified)
    • 24 June 2026

    A page in the Argos 2025 Christmas gift guide featuring the video game Call of Duty: Black Ops 7 failed to make clear that the game contained loot boxes. Another ad was investigated but it didn’t break the rules. 

  • Dribble Media Ltd t/a Midnite

    • Not upheld
    • Social media (influencer or affiliate ad)
    • 10 June 2026

    A TikTok post on Mia Mon’s account promoting an online betting platform didn’t feature someone who was likely to be of strong appeal to under-18s.

  • DBZ Marketplace Online Ltd t/a Debenhams

    • Upheld
    • Website (own site)
    • 20 May 2026

    Two video display banners for Debenhams made misleading savings claims.

  • John Lewis plc

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

    A paid-for Facebook ad and an online display ad for John Lewis made misleading savings claims. 

  • Shop Direct Home Shopping Ltd t/a Very

    • Upheld
    • Website (own site)
    • 20 May 2026

    Two website pages for Very made misleading savings claims. 

  • Bakkavor Ltd

    • Upheld
    • Packaging (promotion)
    • 29 April 2026

    A promotion featured on the packaging of a cookie dough dessert misleadingly implied that particular products were included in the promotion, causing unnecessary disappointment.

  • Skill on Net Ltd t/a Gecko Play

    • Upheld
    • Social media (paid ad)
    • 08 April 2026

    A paid-for Instagram ad for a gambling website portrayed, condoned and encouraged gambling behaviour that was socially irresponsible and could lead to financial, social or emotional harm.

  • RTSB Ltd t/a Match Bingo

    • Not upheld
    • Social media (influencer or affiliate ad)
    • 04 March 2026

    [Republished ruling] A YouTube ad for Match Bingo, which featured the Tottenham Hotspur Football team, wasn’t inappropriately targeted to under-18s.

  • Whaleco UK Ltd t/a Temu

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

    Two paid-for Facebook ads for Temu were misleading by contradicting the terms and conditions that applied to an advertised promotion.

  • OTTY Sleep Ltd

    • Upheld
    • Website (own site)
    • 17 December 2025

    A website page for a mattress company made misleading savings claims.

  • AGN Events t/a Rock N Roll Circus

    • Upheld
    • Social media (own site)
    • 26 November 2025

    An Instagram post by Rock N Roll Circus failed to include all the significant conditions of a promotion.

  • Storage Giant Ltd

    • Upheld
    • Email, Website (own site)
    • 26 November 2025

    Two web pages and an email for a self-storage company made best price guaranteed claims without evidence to support them. They also failed to make sure that quoted prices reflected the total cost people would pay and didn’t make clear when prices were promotional or subject to significant...

  • Trip.com Travel Singapore Pte. Ltd t/a Trip.com

    • Upheld
    • Social media (paid ad)
    • 26 November 2025

    Two paid-for Meta ads for Trip.com for a promotion caused unnecessary disappointment and didn’t provide people with sufficient information to make an informed decision on whether or not to participate. One of the ads also misleadingly implied that an offer was available during a part...

  • Banquist Ltd t/a Winedrops

    • Upheld
    • Social media (paid ad), Email
    • 05 November 2025

    Two emails and a paid-for Instagram ad for an online wine retailer made misleading and unsubstantiated claims about the origin of their wine. They also failed to make clear the basis of the price comparisons and the significant conditions of the promotion.