Rulings (36)
  • linyixiansanrenwangluokejiyouxiangongsi t/a IDJRDDF

    • Upheld
    • Website (commercial classified)
    • 27 May 2026

    A product listing on Amazon featured a gender stereotype that was likely to cause harm or serious offence. 

  • VAM Apps Co t/a The Coach

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

     A paid-for YouTube ad for a men’s health app was likely to cause serious and widespread offence. 

  • 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.

  • Saeta Tech Ltd t/a PixVideo – AI Video Maker

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

    A paid-for YouTube ad for an AI video maker which condoned digitally altering and exposing women’s bodies without their consent, was irresponsible, included a harmful gender stereotype and was likely to cause serious offence.

  • 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.

  • Activision Blizzard UK Ltd t/a Call of Duty

    • Upheld in part
    • Social media (paid ad), Video on demand
    • 18 February 2026

    A Video on Demand and YouTube ad for Call of Duty: Black Ops 7 was socially irresponsible and likely to cause serious offence by trivialising sexual violence. Another issue was investigated but it didn’t break the rules.

  • FlyDogGame t/a Love and Peace

    • Upheld
    • App (paid ad)
    • 18 February 2026

    A paid-for ad for a mobile game app was socially irresponsible and likely to cause serious or widespread offence, including by trivialising and condoning violence, including domestic violence.

  • Pocket FM Private Ltd

    • Upheld
    • App (paid ad)
    • 18 February 2026

    A paid-for in-app ad for an audiobook app was socially irresponsible and likely to cause serious or widespread offence, including by referencing sexual assault and sexual violence.

  • Skywork AI Pte t/a Dramawave

    • Upheld
    • App (paid ad)
    • 18 February 2026

    A video ad for a streaming platform was socially irresponsible and likely to cause serious or widespread offence, including by featuring content that was sexually explicit and suggested sexual violence.

  • Haikou Chengfa Technology Co Ltd t/a Aurai Ai

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

    A paid-for YouTube ad for an AI role play app was socially irresponsible and likely to cause serious and widespread offence, including by featuring expletives and content that condoned sexually violent behaviour.

  • persons unknown t/a Animals Solitaire: Protect

    • Upheld
    • In-game (apps)
    • 04 February 2026

    An in-game ad for a mobile game app was socially irresponsible and likely to cause serious or widespread offence, including by objectifying and sexualising women and featuring a harmful gender stereotype.

  • Dreame International Hong Kong Ltd t/a Stary PTE Ltd

    • Upheld
    • App (own claim)
    • 28 January 2026

    Two in-app ads for a romantic fiction app were socially irresponsible and likely to cause serious and widespread offence including by trivialising or condoning violence against women and girls and featuring sexually explicit content. The ads also were irresponsibly targeted.

  • persons unknown t/a Arthur Mystery Book

    • Upheld
    • In-game (apps)
    • 05 November 2025

    An in-game ad for a mobile game app was socially irresponsible and likely to cause serious and widespread offence by objectifying and sexualising women and featuring a harmful gender stereotype. 

  • WHG (International) Ltd t/a William Hill Online

    • Upheld
    • App (own claim)
    • 29 October 2025

    An in-app ad promoting an offer for a game in the William Hill app misleadingly contradicted the terms and conditions that applied to the offer.

  • Betway Ltd

    • Upheld
    • Social media (paid ad)
    • 22 October 2025

    A pre-roll ad on YouTube for Betway featured the Chelsea FC logo in a manner which was likely to be of strong appeal to under-18s.

  • Bonne Terre Ltd t/a Sky Bet

    • Upheld
    • Social media (paid ad)
    • 22 October 2025

    [Republished ruling] A promoted tweet for Sky Bet featured Gary Neville, a person who was likely to be of strong appeal to under-18s.

  • Eaton Gate Gaming Ltd t/a Kwiff

    • Upheld
    • Social media (own site)
    • 22 October 2025

    A post on Kwiff’s X account featured Sir Lewis Hamilton, a person who was likely to be of strong appeal to under-18s.

  • HW Fantasy Ltd t/a My Passion

    • Upheld
    • In-game (apps)
    • 15 October 2025

    An in-game ad for an online romantic novel service, seen in a puzzle game was socially irresponsible and likely to cause serious and widespread offence, including by trivialising violence against women.

  • William Hill Organization Ltd t/a William Hill

    • Upheld
    • Point of sale
    • 24 September 2025

    A promotional voucher for William Hill encouraged irresponsible use.

  • Dribble Media Ltd t/a Midnite

    • Upheld
    • Social media (own site)
    • 17 September 2025

    A post on Midnite’s X page featuring an AI generated video depicting footballer Trent Alexander-Arnold had strong appeal to under-18s.